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

2019-12-08 Thread Tilman Bayer
It's a reasonable question, for which the Wiki-research-l mailing list
(CCed) might be a better venue.

There is some data at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Audiences_Metrics_%26_Insights_Q1_2018-19.pdf
(not
a full analysis, highlighting just two example countries)

Regards, HaeB

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:19 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The BBC shows how dramatically expensive internet is in Africa.. For in my
> opinion local political reasons Wikipedia Zero has terminated. That is ok
> up to a point; the point being that we understand the consequences from
> this action.
>
> Given that our data is NOT local, people have to pay a premium. What are we
> going to do to compensate for expensive Wikipedia that replaced Wikipedia
> Zero? Did we study the effects or are we not interested in the consequences
> of our actions?
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50516888
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia site and system outages

2019-12-08 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Benjamin and RhinosF1,

in the meantime, you could also check out the coverage in the September
edition of the Signpost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/In_the_media


(I'm sure however that the Foundation's incident report
 will be more
detailed and informative, in particular regarding any significant changes
made to the traffic setup of Wikimedia sites and support obtained from
third-party companies.)

Regards, HaeB

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 8:20 PM Heather Walls  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We hope to have something for you in the next few weeks.
>
> Regards,
> Heather
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:13 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I am also curious about this.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:55 PM, RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> > >
> > > Any idea of when an incident report may come out?
> > >
> > > RhinosF1
> > > Wikimedia User & Incident Reporter
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Heather Walls 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello again,
> > >>
> > >> As a follow-up to my last note on the September 6th DDoS attack, we
> > wanted
> > >> to provide you with an update. There have been no further attacks in
> the
> > >> last week and our sites are now running normally. Our SRE team is
> > >> continuing to monitor the situation.
> > >>
> > >> Based on what we learned in this attack, our security and engineering
> > teams
> > >> are researching and putting together plans for more protection of our
> > >> infrastructure to address any potential attacks in the future.
> > >>
> > >> We appreciate everyone’s support, particularly the folks on the SRE
> > team,
> > >> in helping to restore access.
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Heather
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 4:25 PM Heather Walls 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> By now you are likely aware that the Wikimedia sites suffered from a
> > >>> relatively significant botnet driven DDOS attack on September 6th,
> > taking
> > >>> them offline in several countries throughout the day. This primarily
> > >>> affected Wikipedia access in Europe and the Middle East. We posted a
> > >> short
> > >>> update of the event on our website.[1]
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to thank everyone who stepped up to support the
> > restoration
> > >>> of our projects, including the fast reporting of community members
> > >>> throughout the world and our security and engineering teams who
> worked
> > >> long
> > >>> hours to address many complex issues surrounding the attack and our
> > >>> response—the Site Reliability Engineering team in particular.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Wikimedia Foundation leadership team is proud to work with such
> > >>> talented and dedicated staff and supporters.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yours,
> > >>> Heather
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/07/malicious-attack-on-wikipedia-what-we-know-and-what-were-doing/
> > >>>
> > >>> "Today, Wikipedia was hit with a malicious attack that has taken it
> > >>> offline in several countries for intermittent periods. The attack is
> > >>> ongoing and our Site Reliability Engineering team is working hard to
> > stop
> > >>> it and restore access to the site.
> > >>>
> > >>> As one of the world’s most popular sites, Wikipedia sometimes
> attracts
> > >>> “bad faith” actors. Along with the rest of the web, we operate in an
> > >>> increasingly sophisticated and complex environment where threats are
> > >>> continuously evolving. Because of this, the Wikimedia communities and
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation have created dedicated systems and staff to
> > >> regularly
> > >>> monitor and address risks. If a problem occurs, we learn, we improve,
> > and
> > >>> we prepare to be better for next time.
> > >>>
> > >>> We condemn these sorts of attacks. They’re not just about taking
> > >> Wikipedia
> > >>> offline. Takedown attacks threaten everyone’s fundamental rights to
> > >> freely
> > >>> access and share information. We in the Wikimedia movement and
> > Foundation
> > >>> are committed to protecting these rights for everyone.
> > >>>
> > >>> Right now, we’re continuing to work to restore access wherever you
> > might
> > >>> be reading Wikipedia in the world. We’ll keep you posted."
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Heather Walls (she/her)
> > >>>
> > >>> Chief Creative Officer
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation
> > >>> https://wikimediafoundation.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Heather Walls (she/her)
> > >>
> > >> Chief Creative Officer
> > >>
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page views of male/female biographies?

2018-12-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Micru,

in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g.
the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a
partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these
stats (if not their long-term trend):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/December#Does_advertising_the_gender_gap_help_or_hurt_Wikipedia?

E.g. "On a typical (median) day in September 2014, no one read 26 percent
of the biographies of men versus only 16 percent of the biographies of
women."

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
> male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] "State of Wikimedia Research" presentation at Wikimania 2018

2018-07-27 Thread Tilman Bayer
Thanks, Pine! The slide deck (with notes) for this presentation is at
https://mako.cc/talks/201807-wikimania_research.pdf .
And a general reminder that for monthly and daily (instead of yearly)
research updates, you are welcome to subscribe to our newsletter and
Twitter feed:  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter /
https://twitter.com/WikiResearch

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> In case people are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2UQu3r6vE
>
>
> The topics covered include:
> * Media and images
> * Talk page debates
> * Comparisons of Wikipedia language editions
> * Who is not participating?
> * Wikipedia as a source of data
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lower page views

2018-01-24 Thread Tilman Bayer
ter's edition:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Readers_metrics_Q1_2017-18_(Jul-Sep_2017).pdf


On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:55 AM, Anders Wennersten
<m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>
> We are seeing a steady decrease of page views to our projects (Wikipedia). 
> Nov-Dec-Jan it is decreasing in a rate of 5-10% (year-year), and for big 
> languages like Japanese,  Spanish close to 10%, or some months even more  [1]
>
> Is there any insights of why this is so? Could it be that Google take over 
> accesses with their ever better way of showing results direct  (but then also 
> with showing extracts of Wikipedia articles) .
>
> Or that our interface on mobiles is inferior so we miss accesses from mobiles 
> (now being 54% of total). Or horror of horror that users look for facts on 
> all new sites with fake news instead of Wikipedia?
>
> Anders
>
> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Experimental onion service for all Wikimedia projects set up by Alec Muffett

2017-11-24 Thread Tilman Bayer
The Limits
>of A-Hierarchical Organization
><http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf>
> *Journal
>of Organizational Change Management *29:  3.  361-378.
>- Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
>Wikipedia and Academia
><http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf> *Journal of the
>Association for Information Science and Technology* 67:  7.  1773-1776.
>- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia
><http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf> *Feminist
>Review *113:  1.  103-108.
>    - Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)
> Inequalities
>in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits
> in
>Apache Software Foundation Projects
><http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%
> 2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF>
>, *PLoS ONE* 11:  4.  e0152976.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Termodynamics and social capital

2017-03-19 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi John,

the Wiki-research-l mailing list (CCed) is usually a better place to
ask such questions than Wikimedia-l.

Without having taken a look at the book you mention, here are two
pointers to research that might be related:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/April#cite_ref-27
("Wikipedia as a thermodynamic system - becoming more efficient over
time")
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/September#More_newbies_mean_more_conflict.2C_but_extreme_tolerance_can_still_achieve_eternal_peace

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:29 AM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone tried to use termodynamics on social capital within Wikipedia?
> Over investment in social capital and negative specific heat might create
> unstable systems, that is people will leave the community.
>
> There is a book on the topic; A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and
> Sustainable Community Development
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2017-03-02 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
<https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Product=2399861#Reading_Audience>).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Maithili Wikipedia surpasses 10k articles

2017-01-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Congratulations!

For background, this blog post from 2014 details the efforts by Biplab and
others to get this Wikipedia off the ground back then:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/08/a-focused-approach-for-maithili-wikipedia/

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Biplab Anand <biplaban...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am delighted to share with you that Maithili Wikipedia has reached 10,000
> articles <https://mai.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics>.
>
> To reach the milestone Maithili Wikimedians has taken a challenge
> named Maithili
> Wikipedia Mission 10
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maithili_Wikimedians_
> User_Group/Events/Mission_10>.
> In the month of December, Maithili Wikipedia shows high level of activity
> <https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/15148>.
>
> We are really proud of the Maithili Wikipedia Community and Maithili
> Wikimedians volunteers who run and support the Mission 10. We would also
> like to thanks each and one contributor who contributed to the Mission 10.
>
> Happy New Year 2017!!!
>
> Best
> Biplab
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apple Pay donations

2016-11-15 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Antoine Musso <hashar+...@free.fr> wrote:
> On 15/11/16 02:12, Steven Walling wrote:
> 
>>
>>  Given that payments on mobile are such a huge headache and
>> declining desktop traffic to Wikimedia properties, it might be an
>> interesting pilot to explore nonetheless.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Going out of topic sorry. Regarding mobile and desktop traffic declining,
> according to https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/
>
> * Overall page views is about the same since 2013.
> * Mobile traffic quickly raised until reaching a plateau in 2015.

As indicated - in small print - on that page, it uses two incompatible
pageview definitions for the time before and after May 2015. Hence it
should not be relied upon for such a trend analysis.
See instead (for example)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AReading_and_Comm_Tech_Quarterly_Review_Q1_2016-17.pdf=50

>
> Surely one can say that traffic shifted to mobile, but for the last two
> years the desktop/mobile ratio seems fairly stable.
>
Not quite, the ratio still decreased during that time (or conversely,
the mobile percentage increased); although it is true that it did so
less rapidly than in previous years, and also intermittently moved
into the other direction. See the above link or for more detail
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_daily_pageviews,_mobile_percentage_(April_2015-).png
-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Source-o-meter

2016-04-22 Thread Tilman Bayer
See also the review of that preprint we ran in the Wikimedia Research
Newsletter: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2016/February#Test_of_300k_citations:_how_verifiable_is_.22verifiable.22_in_practice.3F

and the community discussion it generated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-02/Recent_research#Test_of_300k_citations:_how_verifiable_is_.22verifiable.22_in_practice.3F

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, George Herbert
<george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just saw this in The Atlantic.  A suggestion Wikipedia implement a source 
> verifiability meter for each article.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/wikipedia-open-access/479364/
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

2016-04-20 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM,  <alexhin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how 
> many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing 
> comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, 
> Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios 
> are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases 
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager

Interesting question. There may be more suitable venues for it, e.g.
the research mailing list (CCed). Anyway, to start with two examples:

http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/gender-bias-in-wikipedia-and-britannica.html

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/May#Notable_women_.22slightly_overrepresented.22_.28not_underrepresented.29_on_Wikipedia.2C_but_the_Smurfette_principle_still_holds
Comparison of Wikipedia with, among other sources, "Human
Accomplishment", a 2003 "ranking of geniuses throughout the ages and
around the world based on their prominence in contemporary
encyclopedias" (NYT)


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FLOSS for operations equipment

2016-03-21 Thread Tilman Bayer
See also:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Freedom_and_open_source
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 2016-03-21 6:15 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>>
>> Is there a list of equipment that WMF uses without viable FLOSS
>> alternatives, please?
>
>
> The switches and routers for one; as far as I know, high-end networking
> hardware is not available with Libre OSes, nor would the supplier support
> one flashed with a non-proprietary OS (as one can do with some mid-range
> gear).
>
> And there is a fuzzy line about being "all-FLOSS".  Do you use servers with
> only open source BIOS and firmware on all attached hardware?  At best, that
> severely crimps your options and I'm not sure there exists viable
> alternative for /all/ required hardware.
>
> The *important* thing is that anyone can grab Mediawiki, the dumps, and a
> Libre OS supporting LAMP and make the projects run.  Beyond that, best
> effort to always favour FLOSS when it gets the job done is a solid
> philosophical stance that is universally applied.  But, like most
> principles, it cannot be a suicide pact.  We cannot, as a movement, refuse
> to get the job done unless we reinvent every proprietary wheel - this way
> lies both madness and a tremendous waste of donors' money[1].
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
> [1] For instance, a common thing that is surfaced is to home-spin software
> when the only FLOSS alternatives require either serious customization or
> maintenance; we *could* hypothetically hire enough engineers to maintain
> every bit of needed software - or even write the bits that don't exist - but
> that's not what we *do* (nor should it be).
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, April-June 2015

2015-07-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi all,

please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the fourth quarter
of the past fiscal year at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q4_(April-June).pdf
.

Quoting below the foreword by Terry:

We are pleased to bring you the Wikimedia Foundation’s Quarterly
Report for Q4 of the 2014/15 fiscal year. This is the third report
since we switched from a monthly cycle, to align with our quarterly
goal setting process. We are continuing to optimize the report’s
format and the organization’s quarterly review process that the report
is based on, to bring you better information at a lower overhead for
the teams that take out time from their work to tell you how they have
been doing. Participation in the review process is good and growing.

This issue includes some new pieces of information, e.g. the
approximate size of each team (in FTE, on average during this
quarter), and for each objective, the number of team members who were
involved with a significant amount of their time. The overall metrics
scorecard now contains new, more reliable uptime numbers for both
readers and contributors.

As before, we are including an overview slide summarizing successes
and misses across all teams. In a mature 90 day goal setting process,
the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success.
Organizations that are meeting 100% of their goals are not typically
setting aggressive goals.

Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

2015-07-16 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi all,

the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and
slides for those meetings are now available:

Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/CE_and_Advancement,_July_2015

Discovery (formerly Search  Discovery):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_July_2015

Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading,_July_2015

Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering,
Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_July_2015

Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research  Data, Design
Research, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure,_July_2015

Legal, Finance  Administration, Human Resources, Communications and
Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_July_2015

As usual, much of this information will also be available in
consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4,
which is planned to be published on July 30.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation official Youtube channel(s)

2015-07-07 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Nasir,

Jan Ainali has kindly forwarded this to the Social Media mailing list
(https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media ), see the
answers there: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/social-media/2015-July/thread.html#2794

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Nasir Khan nasir8...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Today i was searching in Youtube and found that there are two channels of
 Wikimedia Foundation (the links are following). The channel which has a
 verified link (the first link) has only a few videos and the other channel
 has user friendly URL and more videos.
 Can anyone tell why there are two channels and which one should i follow?

 [1] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK_cUZLMpibyRiIdp0uF-lQ
 [2] - https://www.youtube.com/user/WikimediaFoundation


 --
 *Nasir Khan Saikat*
 www.nasirkhn.com
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16

2015-05-27 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi Pine,

 I have answered your questions in the text of your email.

 Regards,

 Garfield

 On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

...
 * Are SMART goals documented for each department? If so, where can we see
 them?


 In the quarterly goal setting process, the annual plan will be segmented
 into quarterly goals for each department or team. The success of the
 quarterly goals set by each department or team will reported on in the
 Wikimedia
 Foundation Quarterly Report
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf.

To add, for people who are specifically interested in the current
quarterly goals of the Engineering and Product teams: Those have
already been published at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals .

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, January-March 2015

2015-05-15 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi all,

please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the third quarter of
the fiscal year at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf
.

Quoting below the foreword by Terry.

---
We are please to bring you the WMF Quarterly Report for Q3 of 2014/15.
This is the second report since switching from a monthly cycle, to
align with our quarterly goal setting process, and contains several
changes that focus more on results and achievements.

One major change is that goals are counted as either a success (green)
or a miss (red). This report is now a comprehensive overview of all
the Q3 objectives rather than a subset of the quarters goals, as we
delivered in the Q2 report. In a mature 90 day goal setting process
the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success.
Organizations that are meeting 100% of their goals are not typically
setting aggressive goals.

We have also been able to reduce the amount of time and effort that
goes into producing the report by flowing information straight through
from the Quarterly Review Meetings.

In the report you will also find a couple of new pieces of data. The
overview slide shows the status of all 130 goals from Q3 on a single
page, broken down by organization. Additionally we have been able to
include site speed metrics as part of our overall report card.

Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews

2015-04-26 Thread Tilman Bayer
And here are the minutes and slides from the remaining two quarterly
review meetings from this round:

Legal, Finance, Talent  Culture (HR), Communications:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_Finance,_HR,_Communications,_April_2015

Analytics, User Experience, Team Practices, Product Management
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics,_UX,_Team_Practices_and_Product_Management,_April_2015

Much of the content of the slides will also (in somewhat more polished
form) feature in the WMF quarterly report, which is planned to be
published by May 15.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 the quarterly reviews for the past quarter (January-March 2015) took
 place last week. Minutes and slides are now available for the
 following meetings:

 Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement_and_Advancement/April_2015

 Mobile Web, Mobile Apps, Wikipedia Zero:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_and_Wikipedia_Zero,_April_2015

 Parsoid, Services, MediaWiki Core, Tech Ops, Release Engineering,
 Multimedia, Labs, Engineering Community:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid,_Services,_MW_Core,_Ops,_RelEng,_MM,_Labs_and_ECT,_April_2015

 Editing (covering VisualEditor), Collaboration (covering Flow),
 Language Engineering:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_Collaboration_and_Language_Engineering,_April_2015


 As mentioned in February [1], the quarterly review process has been
 extended to basically all groups in the Foundation since Lila took the
 helm last year, and it was further refined this quarter, reducing the
 number of meetings to six overall, each combining several areas.
 Minutes and slides from the remaining two meetings should come out
 soon, too. (And naturally, all the engineering team names above refer
 to the structure before the reorganization that has just been
 announced.)

 [1] 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076835.html

 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, October-December 2014

2015-02-19 Thread Tilman Bayer
Thanks, Alice!
The Participation and Content sections in the scorecard already
link to pages where further details on the definition of each metric
can be found, so I take your comment as a vote to include more of that
in the slide itself next time.
Articles means Wikipedia articles.
Page Views refers to all projects, just like in the previous Data
and Trends of the monthly reports - but now focusing on human traffic
only, like the slide says (Crawlers excluded).

(For those interested in the full gory details, see
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89024 )

As the beta indicates, we may still revisit the selection of metrics
in the next quarterly report.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Tilman,

 I like the focussed view and the compact information. On slide 4, the beta
 scorecard, it would be helpful to know and see (especially for further
 usage) which projects are base for the numbers.

 Alice.

 On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 As Erik announced in November [1], the Foundation has changed its
 reporting from the monthly cycle that has been in place since 2008 to
 a quarterly rhythm. A main reason being to better align it with the
 quarterly planning and goalsetting process that has been extended to
 the entire organization since Lila took the helm. The first of these
 new quarterly reports has now been published here, in the format of a
 slide deck suitable for a 90 minute presentation:


 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q2_(October-December).pdf

 As discussed before [2], the main objectives and design principles for
 this report were:

 * Accountability: Help our movement and our supporters understand how
 we spend our effort, and what we accomplish.
 * Learning together: Highlight important internal  external data,
 trends and lessons.
 * Presentable: Anyone, from volunteer to the executive director,
 should be able to present the work of the WMF using this report.
 * Reasonable effort: Pull as much as possible from existing sources,
 e.g., quarterly review slide decks  minutes.

 Please refer to the linked PDF for the full report (I will see to
 provide a wiki version on Meta in the next few days, exploring the
 best technical process for this kind of conversion). But to offer an
 excerpt from the “Key insights and trends” part (slide 5):

 --
 * Readership: Globally, pageviews are flat. Mobile is growing, desktop
 is shrinking. Given a growing global potential audience, this means we
 need to invest in the readership experience, with focus on mobile.
  We have learned that we can move at highest velocity on mobile apps
 due to their self-contained nature.
 * Beyond editing:  Inviting readers to perform classification tasks on
 their smartphone is showing promise; response quality is exceeding
 expectations.
 * Performance: The implementation of HHVM across Wikimedia sites is an
 engineering success story and demonstrates that dedicated focus in the
 area of site performance can pay off relatively quickly.
 * Fundraising: Mobile matters -- thanks to focused effort, we were
 able to increase the mobile revenue share from 1.7% to 16.1% (2013 vs.
 2014 year-end campaign).
 --

 Be aware that in the interest of readability, the report focuses on
 the work done on a number of key priorities rather than attempting a
 comprehensive list of every team’s goals - for a more detailed view,
 consider referring to the documentation of that team’s quarterly
 reviews [3]. This being the first report in this new format, we will
 surely tweak format, content (including the choice of key metrics) and
 process for the subsequent issues. Comments continue to be welcome at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports .


 Regards, Tilman


 [1]
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2014-November/001005.html
 [2]
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076747.html
 [3]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews


 --
 Tilman Bayer
 Senior Analyst
 Wikimedia Foundation
 IRC (Freenode): HaeB

 ___
 Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
 directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
 community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ___
 WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
 wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-02-16 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:57 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 Tilman Bayer wrote:
Quarterly review minutes and/or slides of the following teams have
been posted in recent days:

Multimedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarte
rly_reviews/Multimedia/January_2015

Legal  Community Advocacy:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LCA_Q2_Slides.pdf (abridged
slides only)

Fundraising and Fundraising Tech:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarte
rly_reviews/Fundraising/January_2015

Communications:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Communications_WMF_Quarterly_Revie
w,_Q2_2014-15.pdf
(slides only, as a report - no actual meeting took place)

 Hi.

 I'm trying to understand why certain groups seem to have had a formal
 quarterly review (with minutes on a corresponding Meta-Wiki page) and why
 others seem to have bypassed this process. Why wasn't there a review for
 two of the four groups mentioned (Communications and Legal  Community
 Advocacy)? Publishing slides is better than nothing, I suppose, but it
 seems strange to not hold a formal quarterly review for these two teams.

 MZMcBride


This was actually the first time that groups outside Engineering and
Grantmaking took part in the quarterly review process. While indeed
almost every team or department was conducting quarterly review
meetings this time, bear in mind that the process is still being
worked on and rethought, e.g. regarding the amount of detail covered
in each meeting (corresponding to its length), and what level of
involvement from senior management should be required in each case.

As recorded on the overview page, Legal  Community Advocacy held in
fact a quarterly review meeting on January 30, it's just that we
decided not to publish minutes because much of the discussion was
confidential and sensitive - perhaps unsurprisingly, considering the
department's work area.
Because the Communications department is still in build-up mode, there
was a sense that a formal quarterly review meeting did not yet make
sense for them this time. But the team decided to nevertheless produce
a full slide deck that, I think, contains a lot of relevant
information about its Q2 work.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-02-16 Thread Tilman Bayer
Quarterly review minutes and/or slides of the following teams have
been posted in recent days:

Multimedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/January_2015

Legal  Community Advocacy:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LCA_Q2_Slides.pdf (abridged slides only)

Fundraising and Fundraising Tech:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Fundraising/January_2015

Communications:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Communications_WMF_Quarterly_Review,_Q2_2014-15.pdf
(slides only, as a report - no actual meeting took place)


With this, documentation from all 20 quarterly review meetings that
took place about Q2 (October-December 2014) has been published.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, October-December 2014

2015-02-15 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi all,

As Erik announced in November [1], the Foundation has changed its
reporting from the monthly cycle that has been in place since 2008 to
a quarterly rhythm. A main reason being to better align it with the
quarterly planning and goalsetting process that has been extended to
the entire organization since Lila took the helm. The first of these
new quarterly reports has now been published here, in the format of a
slide deck suitable for a 90 minute presentation:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q2_(October-December).pdf

As discussed before [2], the main objectives and design principles for
this report were:

* Accountability: Help our movement and our supporters understand how
we spend our effort, and what we accomplish.
* Learning together: Highlight important internal  external data,
trends and lessons.
* Presentable: Anyone, from volunteer to the executive director,
should be able to present the work of the WMF using this report.
* Reasonable effort: Pull as much as possible from existing sources,
e.g., quarterly review slide decks  minutes.

Please refer to the linked PDF for the full report (I will see to
provide a wiki version on Meta in the next few days, exploring the
best technical process for this kind of conversion). But to offer an
excerpt from the “Key insights and trends” part (slide 5):

--
* Readership: Globally, pageviews are flat. Mobile is growing, desktop
is shrinking. Given a growing global potential audience, this means we
need to invest in the readership experience, with focus on mobile.
 We have learned that we can move at highest velocity on mobile apps
due to their self-contained nature.
* Beyond editing:  Inviting readers to perform classification tasks on
their smartphone is showing promise; response quality is exceeding
expectations.
* Performance: The implementation of HHVM across Wikimedia sites is an
engineering success story and demonstrates that dedicated focus in the
area of site performance can pay off relatively quickly.
* Fundraising: Mobile matters -- thanks to focused effort, we were
able to increase the mobile revenue share from 1.7% to 16.1% (2013 vs.
2014 year-end campaign).
--

Be aware that in the interest of readability, the report focuses on
the work done on a number of key priorities rather than attempting a
comprehensive list of every team’s goals - for a more detailed view,
consider referring to the documentation of that team’s quarterly
reviews [3]. This being the first report in this new format, we will
surely tweak format, content (including the choice of key metrics) and
process for the subsequent issues. Comments continue to be welcome at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports .


Regards, Tilman


[1] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2014-November/001005.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076747.html
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-02-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from four recent meetings have appeared under the
following URLs:

Analytics team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/January_2015

Parsoid and Services teams:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Services/January_2015

Mobile Web and Apps teams:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile/January_2015

Product Process Improvements (update meeting):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Product/January_2015

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Draft structure for the new WMF quarterly reports (feedback welcome)

2015-02-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi everyone,

as detailed by Erik earlier [1], the Foundation is changing its
reporting from the monthly cycle that has been in place since 2008 to
a quarterly rhythm. A main reason being to better align it with the
quarterly planning and goalsetting process that has been extended to
the entire organization since Lila took the helm. The first of these
new quarterly reports is set to come out on February 15, and while the
content is being filled out over the next week, we wanted to provide
an opportunity for the entire community to comment on the planned
structure.

The main objectives and design principles for this report are:

* Accountability: Help our movement and our supporters understand how
we spend our effort, and what we accomplish.
* Learning together: Highlight important internal  external data,
trends and lessons.
* Presentable: Anyone, from volunteer to the executive director,
should be able to present the work of the WMF using this report.
* Reasonable effort: Pull as much as possible from existing sources,
e.g., quarterly review slide decks  minutes.

We have decided that this iteration of the new report will appear in
the format of a slide deck suitable for a 90 minute presentation,
which means that it will need to focus on the highest priorities in
each area, linking to the quarterly review documentation and other
material for further detail.

See the mockup (linked below) for the intended structure, which
includes the following sections:
*Key metrics (expanding the Data and Trends section of the previous
monthly reports, adding a red/green/yellow indicator to provide
context on whether each number is seen as concerning, positive or
neutral), and overall insights/takeaways from this quarter
For each priority work area:
*What we said (previously set goals) and what we did (results).
*What we learned (how should the results impact the work going
forward? What insights can the Foundation or the movement take away?)
and concluding with:
*What's next (excerpt of the highest priority goals for the next quarter)

The draft structure (with mocked up content - not the actual report
yet) can be found here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports

Please leave comments there. We will try to take them into account
while tweaking the structure further, and of course, this being the
first iteration, we are likely to make many further changes for the
next quarterly report.

Note: This report is going to cover the second quarter of the
Foundation's fiscal year (October-December 2014). The remaining
monthly reports under the old model until September have all been
published by now, you can find them at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports .


[1] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2014-November/001005.html

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-02-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Editing (formerly VisualEditor) team await perusal at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing/January_2015
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-02-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Collaboration team (which was formerly called the Core
features team and is working on the Flow project) have appeared here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Collaboration/January_2015

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-02-02 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from three recent quarterly review meetings held
last week are now available:

Language Engineering team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Language_Engineering/January_2015

MediaWiki Core team
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/MediaWiki_Core/January_2015

Talent  Culture team (slides only:)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Quarterly_Review-_2014-15_Q2_-_Talent_%26_Culture,_Redacted.pdf

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-01-31 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from four recent quarterly reviews are now available:

Team Practices Group:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Team_Practices/January_2015

Engineering Commmunity Team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Engineering_Community/January_2015

Release Engineering and QA (Quality Assurance) team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Release_Engineering/January_2015

Mobile Partnerships (Wikipedia Zero) team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/January_2015

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2015-01-31 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from two recent quarterly review meetings of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/January_2015_-1
(focusing on the Experimentation  Community Health area)
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/January_2015_-2
(focusing on the Community Growth area)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update regarding WMF's reporting practices

2015-01-09 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Given https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-
 January/076324.html, some questions.

 Erik Moeller, 06/11/2014 07:57:

 Format: Effective immediately, we are shifting to a quarterly
 reporting format. This will impact our reporting, and the October
 through December


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
 Report,_September_2014 is still missing. Who's going to compile it?

 Nothing has changed about the process for this last monthly report. I just
sent out a ping about the last missing bit, and will try to publish it as
soon as everything is in.


 As above, the deadline for publication of the first report, covering
 October 1 - December 31, is February 15.


 Is this confirmed?

Yes



  For this first report, we are
 being conservative with regard to the deadline, as we will have our
 resources directed at our staff all-hands and developer summit in
 January.

 Tilman and I will begin creating a draft structure for this new report
 in coming weeks, and will do so in public from the get-go.


 Did this happen? If not, will Tilman still help draft this structure?

Yes, Erik and I have been working on this. get-go was probably a bit
ambiguous - as soon as the new draft structure has been made available to
staff, it will also be made available on Meta (rather than revealing it
only together with the report's publication next month).



  We will
 also rethink the “Wikimedia Highlights” alongside other multilingual
 movements news formats, likely detaching them from reporting
 functions.

 Out of scope of this effort for now:

 - Providing more timely updates on initiatives with high user impact.
 We’re continuing to provide updates to Tech News [2] and similar
 newsletters, but we’re not currently doing a major overhaul here.


 Is https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-
 October/074889.html still accurate in that Guillaume continues tech
 reports for now?

 Nemo

  [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News
 [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Dashboard


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-28 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Thursday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Multimedia team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-22 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's MediaWiki Core team can now be found at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Quarterly_review,_October_2014/Notes
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-21 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Parsoid, Services and OCG (Offline content generator)
teams have appeared at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-21 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
MediaWiki Release Management team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/MediaWiki_Release/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly review for Grantmaking

2014-10-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
(For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the publication of the
minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia
Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html
)

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 Tilman, thanks for those notes.

As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken
by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this
particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should
go to them ;)

 There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in quarterly
 reviews,
I don't recall that discussion, do you have a link?

 and I have some questions and comments about this review, mostly
 for Lila.
Sure! Feel free to leave them on the talk page - as community members
have already been doing with other reviews this week.


 However, I would like to see the notes from the group mentioned at the end
 of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an
 opportunity for community participation in the group, I would like to
 participate in a community capacity, if that is ok. (:

Well, again, I wasn't at the meeting myself, but my interpretation of
that sentence is that to group about this simply was a somewhat
colloquial expression meaning to have a smaller followup meeting
between staff from the Product team and from the Grantmaking team,
including Erik and possibly Lila, about the particular issue in
question - technical support for grantmaking work which would need
dedicated time from WMF software developers in the Product team. I'm
not sure what you meant by the notes - please be aware that not
every WMF staff meeting has a designated minute-taker - and in any case
group was a verb here, not a noun ;)


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Core features (Flow) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Editing (formerly VisualEditor) team can now be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-02 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Zero (Mobile Partnerships) team team are now
available at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's mid-year review meeting of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Education Program team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Education_Program/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-20 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Growth team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-16 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review of the
Foundation's Language Engineering team are available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Language_Engineering/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-11 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Release Engineering and QA team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Release_Engineering/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

2014-09-06 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi all,

ten years ago this Sunday, Wikimedia Commons went online. We've sent out
the below press release to draw some attention to this occasion, and also
published a separate blog post by Lila which goes a bit more into the
project's history (such as the very first photograph uploaded to Commons):

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/05/celebrating-the-10th-anniversary-of-wikimedia-commons/


-- Forwarded message --
From: Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:54 PM
Subject: [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary
To: press-release press-rele...@lists.wikimedia.org


(This press release is also available online here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Commons_celebrates_its_10th_anniversary
)

Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

   - *22 million+ images make Wikimedia Commons world’s largest freely
   licensed educational media repository.*

(San Francisco, USA) September 5, 2014 -- This Sunday marks the 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Its creation was officially
announced on September 7, 2004.

More than 22 million media files have been uploaded by the Wikimedia
volunteer community over the decade since Commons came into being. The
Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to have a dedicated community of
creators and institutions who continue to share their images and other
media so that the project has flourished and will continue to thrive.

Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Lila Tretikov said: “Many people
don’t know that the incredible, freely-licensed images that illustrate
Wikipedia are curated and maintained by the volunteer community of
Wikimedia Commons editors. Wikimedia Commons is the visual engine of the
Wikimedia projects, and we look forward to its next decade of
contributions, collaboration, and sharing.”

In the past ten years, creators have contributed to Commons in a variety of
ways, including the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest, which is currently
inviting submissions through the end of September. The Guinness Book of
World Records named Wiki Loves Monuments the largest photo contest in the
world, and it has inspired more 900,000 image uploads since 2010.

On this occasion we also celebrate the partnerships with dozens of cultural
institutions (GLAM) from around the world that have donated portions of
their collections. Their contributions have allowed Wikimedia Commons to
become a vital resource for educational and historical content, and ensured
the increasing depth and richness of the illustrations for articles on
Wikipedia.

The Foundation recognizes the vibrant Wikimedia Commons community, which is
responsible for increasing the availability of freely licensed images and
information to the public. The Commons community takes its role as a
guardian of the rights of creators extremely seriously, working diligently
to confirm authorship and licensing status of the media uploaded to
Commons. This work is reflected in the low number of DMCA takedown requests
received by the Wikimedia Foundation every year.

Erik Moeller, then a volunteer Wikimedian, first proposed the Commons in
March 2004 as a common repository for the images that Wikipedians had begun
uploading to illustrate the free online encyclopedia’s growing collection
of articles. Today, Moeller is the Wikimedia Foundation’s Deputy Director
and VP of Engineering, and Commons is the world’s largest repository of
freely licensed educational media on the internet.

“The Wikimedia Commons community is the reason these freely-licensed images
exist for everyone to enjoy. said Moeller. “Our next steps are to prepare
Wikimedia Commons for the future, including support for rich, structured
metadata; a massively improved user experience for uploading media; better
tools for editing media content through the web; and better support for
video. The first decade was just the beginning.”

The Foundation is thrilled to be celebrating these and many more
achievements of the project’s first decade.


About the Wikimedia Foundation

https://wikimediafoundation.org
https://blog.wikimedia.org/

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive 413 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most
popular web property world-wide (comScore, July 2014). Available in 287
languages, Wikipedia contains more than 32 million articles contributed by
a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San
Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3)
charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:

Communications, Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 ext 6633kmaher[image: @]wikimedia.org



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior

[Wikimedia-l] Introducing the new Wikimedia blog: a place for movement news

2014-07-31 Thread Tilman Bayer
 to
seamlessly move so much movement history from one platform to another. We’d
like to thank the many members of the community who have been–and no doubt
will be–providing suggestions and bug reports for the blog platform (with a
special thanks to Jeremy Baron). A very big thanks to former WMF
Communications team member Matthew Roth, who spearheaded this process and
led the redesign work in 2013; to Terry Chay, who provided invaluable
technical advice on the process; to the WMF Legal, UX and Operations teams,
in particular Luis Villa and Rob Halsell; and to the teams at Exygy (in
particular Justin Carboneau and Zach Berke) and at Automattic.

A final reminder: Like the Wikimedia projects, the blog is created by you.
You can draft posts directly on Meta, and the Communications team will work
with you to edit and publish, according to a transparent editorial process:
it’s now common for posts to be created in full view of anyone who is
inclined to read or participate. This blog is a platform for the movement,
and we’re here to help you share your message
http://vip.wordpress.com/hosting-tos/ with the world.

*The WMF Communications Team*
*Katherine, Tilman, Carlos, and Heather*

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-07-18 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's MediaWiki Core team are now available at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Quarterly_review,_July_2014/Notes

(agenda/overview page:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Quarterly_review,_July_2014
)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-07-12 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Core features team (focusing on the work on Flow) are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/July_2014
.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-07-11 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Wikipedia Zero (Mobile Partnerships) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/July_2014
 .


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2014-15 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

2014-07-07 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi all,

the Wikimedia Foundation's 2014-15 Annual Plan has just been published at

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2014-15_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan.pdf

accompanied by a QA:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers

The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees on June 29, 2014.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-06-27 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/June_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-06-25 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last Friday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Parsoid team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/June_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Disclosure amendment to the Terms of Use

2014-06-16 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi GerardM,

have you read Stephen's email?

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hoi,
 WOW,
 CAN SOMEONE WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO CLARIFY IF THIS WILL GET A
 HEARING?

 Either it is something that should apply to all projects and consequently
 it is a board issue or it is en.wp only. When it is en.wp only, the policy
 is either not carefully thought through or it should not be a board issue
 in the first place.\

 The time to reconsider the application from a project level did come and
 has gone REALLY
 Thanks,
  GerardM


 On 16 June 2014 19:32, Tomasz W. Kozlowski twkozlow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stephen LaPorte writes:

  We would like to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
  has approved an amendment to Section 4 of the Terms of Use to require
  disclosure of paid editing.

 There is a proposal on Wikimedia Commons that aims to opt-out that project
 from the amendment, given the huge differences between Commons and the
 English Wikipedia, at which the amendment was targeted.

 Feedback and comments are welcome at
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Alternative_
 paid_contribution_disclosure_policy

 Tomasz


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-06-14 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Growth (formerly E3) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/June_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-06-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/May_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

2014-05-29 Thread Tilman Bayer
(This press release is also available online here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Airtel_Offers_Nigerians_Free_Access_to_Wikipedia
 )

*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*

   - *Customers to Access Multilingual Content Free of Data Charges*
   - *Restates Commitment to Educational Development, Youth Empowerment*

*Lagos, Nigeria, Thursday, May 29th, 2014*: Leading telecommunications
services provider, Airtel Nigeria, has announced a strategic partnership
with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, to
offer their consumers across the country access to Wikipedia through their
mobile phones free of data charges.

The initiative, which is first of its kind in Nigeria, is dubbed Wikipedia
Zero, and it is aimed at reaching and empowering billions of people around
the world whose access to the Internet is primarily through a mobile
device. Airtel Nigeria subscribers can access Wikipedia free of data
charges at m.wikipedia.org.

With the new partnership, Airtel will help deliver knowledge and
information of Wikipedia to 21 million of new users in the West African
region. Speaking on the new partnership, Chief Commercial Officer, Airtel
Nigeria, Maurice Newa, said the initiative is in line with the company’s
corporate vision of becoming Nigeria’s number one Internet Company, saying
the new service will help connect Nigerians with relevant knowledge and
information that will empower them to succeed in their personal and
professional endeavors.

“We are excited with our partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and we
will continue to provide innovative solutions that will uplift Nigerians in
line with our brand promise of becoming the most loved brand in the daily
lives of Nigerians,” he said. “At Airtel, we are passionate and committed
to creating solid educational and youth empowerment platforms that will
enrich and transform the lives of telecoms consumers across the country.”

“We commend Airtel Nigeria for taking a leadership role in empowering their
society through information access, and we’re thrilled to partner with
them,” said Carolynne Schloeder, Head of Mobile Partnerships at the
Wikimedia Foundation. “Expanding Wikipedia Zero to the people of Nigeria is
a big step forward for free knowledge in Africa.”


About Bharti Airtel

Bharti Airtel Limited is a leading global telecommunications company with
operations in 20 countries across Asia and Africa. Headquartered in New
Delhi, India, the company ranks amongst the top 4 mobile service providers
globally in terms of subscribers. In India, the company's product offerings
include 2G, 3G and 4G wireless services, mobile commerce, fixed line
services, high speed DSL broadband, IPTV, DTH, enterprise services
including national  international long distance services to carriers. In
the rest of the geographies, it offers 2G, 3G wireless services and mobile
commerce. Bharti Airtel had over 297 million customers across its
operations at the end of April 2014. To know more please visit,
www.airtel.com


About the Wikimedia Foundation

http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://wikipediazero.org
http://blog.wikimedia.org

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive 500 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most
popular web property world-wide (comScore, August 2013). Available in 287
languages, Wikipedia contains more than 29 million articles contributed by
a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San
Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3)
charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:

Communications, Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 ext 6633 jwa...@wikimedia.org

(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply 
with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, February 2014

2014-04-24 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:09 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 Revenue for the month of January is $3.42MM versus plan of $0.01MM,
 approximately $3.41MM or 58,335% over plan.
 Year-to-date revenue is $38.17MM versus plan of $45.04MM, approximately
 $6.87MM or 15% under plan.

 Can we please use the word fiscal if we don't mean calendar year?

I added a wikilink to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/year-to-date .
It's a standard expression in this context, always referring to the
fiscal year. I think inventing a new one specifically for the
Foundation's reports would add rather than reduce confusion.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations

2014-04-18 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Cristian,

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Cristian Consonni
kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
 2014-04-18 0:46 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
 * There is a specific need, a conference we could support, a developer
 event or something we could help out with. There is a clear goal, and it is
 one-time. We have a clear benefit. For example: helping OTRS to become less
 messy.

 [OT]
 As a Wikimedia list moderator (just a couple, the Wiki Loves Monuments
 ones) I am ready to pay gold for anything that would reduce the amount
 of spam in the queues be it a better spam filter, a system to delete
 spam from multiple lists at once, magic or whatever!

 Cristian
 p.s.: pay gold is a figure of speech, but I would definitely
 personally support such a project!

yeah, as moderator on some other lists, I share your feelings about
spam. Note though that SpamAssassin is already running in our Mailman
installation and generating spam scores for mailing list messages,
just not actively discarding them based on these scores. A few weeks
ago, Daniel from Ops wrote up some documentation on how you can
activate that for your list as a list admin:

https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lists.wikimedia.org#Fighting_spam_in_mailman

The current blocker is that it is generating some false positives,
i.e. someone would need to spend time to tweak and test the settings:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56525

So it looks we have to some of our own homework first here. But if it
turns out that there are limitations in SpamAssassin which we could
help them overcome to make it more effective for our purposes, that
might be a very good use of donor money.

(As an example concerning your suggestion for a system to delete spam
from multiple lists at once: I'm not sure if SpamAssassin is
currently integrated with Mailman in a way that enables it to learn
from list moderator actions immediately. See e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpamAssassin#Bayesian_filtering
http://www.jamesh.id.au/articles/mailman-spamassassin/ -- The Future )

 [OT]


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] neologisms

2014-04-08 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

...

 Where is the learning patterns library mentioned at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/April_2014
 ?


At https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library
- which was actually linked at the first occurrence of the therm.
There is a blog post with a fuller explanation here:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/learning-patterns-new-way-share-important-lessons/

In general, please be aware that these quarterly review minutes are
live notes from internal meetings which are provided, only slightly
edited, on an as-is basis for transparency reasons - rather than
purposefully crafted as an accessible documentation about a topic. As
the note on top says: Consider referring to the presentation slides,
blog posts, press releases and other official material. I am
certainly trying to add explanatory links and include parenthetical
remarks as I go along, such as I did in the above case (and it's great
to know that you and other people are actually reading them and can
benefit from such links, that makes it worthwhile adding them). But
it's a lightweight editorial effort. If the goal was to ensure that
those minutes - and the slides - are as accessible as say, a blog post
about the topic or a documentation page on Meta, it would require much
more time.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-04-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/April_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-04-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/March_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Geoff,

 Your link to
 http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
 in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
 me what it used to be for some reason.
Just on a technical note, I can access this URL without problem, which
should be the IA's capture closest to the time when Geoff linked to
the page in his talk page comment (7 June 2012):
https://web.archive.org/web/20120618214851/http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html


 Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
 political advocacy by nonprofits?

 Also, do you think it would be a good idea to make an annotated version for
 those of us wondering what is and is not allowed when recommending advocacy
 actions in support of volunteer quality of life to Foundation officials?
 Thank you.

 Best regards,
 James Salsman

 [1]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AAPG%2FFunds_Dissemination_Committee%2FFramework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCdiff=3815742oldid=3815636#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel

 [2]
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Political_advocacy:_We_ensure_our_views_are_known_to_politicians_who_threaten_our_values
 .
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-04-01 Thread Tilman Bayer
The minutes and slides from Friday's quarterly review meeting of the
Parsoid team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/March_2014
.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
 Foundation's VisualEditor team are now available at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor/March_2014

 (A separate but related quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team
 took place today, those minutes should be up on Monday.)

 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --
 Tilman Bayer
 Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
 Wikimedia Foundation
 IRC (Freenode): HaeB



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-03-28 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's VisualEditor team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor/March_2014

(A separate but related quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team
took place today, those minutes should be up on Monday.)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

2014-03-13 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Craig,

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:

 In addition to Risker's comments, which I agree with 100%, I would further
 request that any future survey of users be designed and supervised only by
 someone with extensive expertise and experience in the field of survey
 methodology.  Many previous surveys that have been done by the Foundation
 have, despite a lot of hard work and effort put into them, suffered from
 methodological flaws, either in the form of the questions asked or the way
 that the user sample was selected.  The results have therefore not only
 been useless in some cases, but in some cases actually misleading and thus
 potentially damaging to the movement.

Agree about the importance of careful survey design. But, without
revisiting the dispute about the question in previous editor surveys
that asked Wikimedians to rate the performance of Wikimedia chapters,
which I know well you had concerns about, let me point out that the
Foundation's 2011 reader survey and the two 2011 editor surveys (whose
questionnaires and methodology were largely reused in the 2012 editor
survey) were designed and supervised by a PhD with extensive
experience in quantitative and qualitative research, who had been
conducting surveys in several countries even before she joined WMF. Of
course that doesn't mean that the questionnaire and methodology can't
be criticized or improved in each case - I recall that community
feedback about specific issues led to various improvements - , just
wanted to set the record straight.



 This is something that the Foundation has gotten better at over the years,
 and since we're on the topic it's something I'd like them to stick to!

Thanks, and please do continue to hold WMF to high standards ;)

 Cheers,
 Craig


 On 13 March 2014 21:32, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 
Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?
  
   It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
  
   A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
   highest priority by our community.
  
   If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
   http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
   then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
   material at http://demochoice.org/
  
   The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
   pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
   each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 strongly agree to 5 strongly
   disagree) responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
   options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
   relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
   options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
   gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
   ranking.
  
   Best regards,
   James
  
   ___
  
 
 
  I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not
  participate in it.  The shopping list of causes - many of which have little
  or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of
  the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric.
  Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be elected.  Elected for
  what?  Why 12 of them?  What about if lots of people think one of these
  topics is really important, but for different reasons?
 
  Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
  Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
  objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
  interested in that.
 
  Risker/Anne
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More new editors?

2014-03-08 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Asaf Bartov, 07/03/2014 22:49:

 Another version of this that has been tried by WMF, more similar to
 Charles's second suggestion, is documented here:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geo-targeted_Editors_Participation/report


 Uh. Thanks for linking. Being on en.wiki, basically orphan and uncategorised, 
 it's impossible to find.

 Nemo

It was also summarized a bit later in this blog post:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/02/english-wikipedia-editor-pilot-philippines/


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-03-07 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Zero team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/March_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-03-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Friday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Growth team are now available at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/February_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-02-27 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from this week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Core features team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/February_2014

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-02-21 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/February_2014

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-14 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.orgwrote:


 Add to this the complexity that several barnstars are subst:ed rather
 than transcluded -- but not all -- and you end up with a completely
 intractable problem.


 Bah humbug.



Quite a few researchers have published quantitative analyses of barnstars, e.g.:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/July#cite_ref-7
(analyzed 21,299 barnstars awarded to 14,074 editors on the English
Wikipedia)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/August#Briefly
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012-04-30#Recognition_may_sustain_user_participation

Yes, some of them could probably have enhanced their datasets by
taking e.g. talk page archiving into account, but I wouldn't rule out
the possibility that they still achieved a good approximation.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-12-06 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes, slides and graphs from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Growth (formerly Editor Engagement Experiments) team are
now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/December_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

...


 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How lovely live communication works worldwide

2013-12-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Manuel Schneider
manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch wrote:
...
 We use BBB regularly for our staff and board meetings, weekly meetings
 with 4 - 5 participants. Works great.
 The biggest issues are people not having connected their mic or adjusted
 their mixer properly or not using a headset at all, causing background
 noises and echos. But no solution, neither Skype nor Mumble, can fix that.

Many solutions fix that using echo cancellation
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoconferencing#Echo_cancellation ).

According to 
http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2012/10/15/the-long-journey-towards-good-free-video-conferencing/
, the lack of good free echo cancellation code used to be the most
critical problem for free videoconferencing software. (good echo
cancellation  is required in order to avoid having an ugly echo
effect when trying to use your laptop built-in speakers and microphone
for a call. So people have been forced to use a headset to make things
work reasonably well. This was a quite hard issue to solve as there
was neither any great open source code available which implemented
echo cancellation or a good way to hook it into the system.)

That post goes on to say that the issue was mitigated last year when
Google ended up releasing a quite good echo cancellation algorithm as
part of their WebRTC effort. I don't know if Mumble or BBB have since
made use of that, though.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-12-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Tuesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Multimedia team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/December_2013
.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity


...

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation





-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How lovely live communication works worldwide

2013-12-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Note that this solution is still based on proprietary software, in that it
requires users to install a Flash plugin.

It would be interesting to learn about the experiences of Wikimedia France,
who has been replacing Skype with the entirely free Mumble, according to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange .


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:42 PM, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jan, please report the issues that you had to the maintainer of the
 instance or directly to:
 http://bigbluebutton.org/

 Cheers,
 Micru


 On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ain...@wikimedia.se
 wrote:

  We just did. Too many were not able to log in.
 
 
  *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
 
  Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
 http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida
  
  0729 - 67 29 48
 
 
 
 
 
 
  2013/12/3 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com
 
   Maybe try this one?
   http://videoconf.wikimedia.ch/
  
   Cheers,
   Micru
  
  
   On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_w...@yahoo.com
   wrote:
  
Somehow, I don't know how we get that happen, almost every time we
 use
live communication to communicate about projects to enrich and
 improve
   the
Wikimedia projects, something goes wrong in the communication.
 Besides
   the
usual problems of connecting to the internet, a lot of software
 issues
occur, then we have a microphone of someone that doesn't work in only
  one
software programme, while it works in others, or we don't get sound
 out
   of
the programme, programmes that need an account but refuse you to sign
  up.
From Google Hangout, Skype to Mumble, all have issues.
   
I think it would be lovely to have a piece of software maybe hosted
 by
   WMF
that works for everyone to enable everyone to participate. Currently
   users
are excluded because of insufficient software and it takes too much
  time
   to
get everything working. The key of the Wikimedia projects is that
   everyone
can participate, besides when it comes to live communication.
   
   
Greetings,
Romaine
   
   
   
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  
  
  
   --
   Etiamsi omnes, ego non
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 



 --
 Etiamsi omnes, ego non
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-12-02 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the quarterly review of the Foundation's
Grantmaking and Program Evaluation teams are now available at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking_and_Program_Evaluation/October_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-11-11 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the third quarterly review of the Foundation's
VisualEditor and Parsoid teams are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor-Parsoid/November_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-11-07 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the third quarterly review of the Foundation's
Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/October_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices (Tilman Bayer)

2013-10-31 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Jane,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:

 @Sue, I understand the idea behind doing this and applaud the idea -
 it would be so much easier to make strategy decisions in WMNL if we
 had more input from more involved people in the Dutch Wikipedia
 community. I get that it is really a conflict of interest for WMNL
 insiders to be the only ones to comment and approve the funds request
 made by WMNL insiders. The problem with this central sitenotice, as
 Romaine pointed out, is that it is in English and points to the WMNL
 fund request in English.

Actually, the banners are available in Dutch, and Romaine had said so
as well. If you see them in English, one possible reason could be that
your browser's interface language is set to English.

The main (global) FDC banner has been translated into over 70
languages, and the general community review page that it points to is
available in over 10 languages:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/FDC_portal/Proposals/Community/Review
.

Comments on the funding requests can be made in languages other than
English, too. As for the funding requests themselves, yes, they are in
English. I guess it would be too much of a burden for the either
fund-seeking organizations or volunteer translators to provide the
entire proposal form in several languages. But one idea for the future
might be to make at least the shorter overview section of each
request translatable (e.g.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Nederland/Proposal_form#Overview_of_grant_request
).

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices

2013-10-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
 hi,



 On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine_w...@yahoo.com
  wrote:

 The reason why I wrote is not to blame anyone, but to promote thinking of
 other ways to communicate to the local communities.



 I'm skeptical, if a general banner is the best idea, too. Since quite
 likely only the more active WIkipedia users will comment on the FDC
 process, going to the Village Pump on local projects would be probably
 equally effective.

Yes, sending out messages to village pumps is an option that we
considered as well (using Global Message Delivery). However, based on
my experience there is no doubt that this would have been considerably
less effective.  There is a lot of active users who don't frequent
village pumps (or mailing lists) at all. To consider a concrete
example we may recall from the FDC's own history, the call for
volunteers that led to the formation of the initial committee was
first announced via a global message to village pumps in July 2012,
and then promoted with a CentralNotice banner (to logged-in users) in
August. In July it received 766 pageviews, in August it was 11,123.
(http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/201208/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Call_for_Volunteers
)

Of course it is to some degree a political decision how much normal
editors should be integrated into the decisionmaking process about
this donation money, and as such not mine to make. I do think that for
proposals that plan to spend money on supporting the local editing
community in their work, members of that community have special
expertise when it comes to assessing on how effective the planned
measures might be.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices

2013-10-29 Thread Tilman Bayer
translations (the global banner has been translated into 70
languages), but at least for major languages like Dutch, the intention
is indeed to get them translated before they go live. As you said
yourself on the De Kroeg, this banner was available in Dutch when it
came live yesterday.

 Also they experience getting banners as not interesting for Wikipedia.

 As bonus I personally and other users have experienced that clicking away a 
 banner made the banner appear again within the hour visiting other pages. I 
 had that at least four times on a project, on several projects. Re-appeasring 
 after being clicked away is useless and disturbing.

Yes, that should not happen. The banners rely on a cookie to store
this user choice. A possible reason could be that the cookie got lost
e.g. when the browser was restarted, or it might be a bug.


 Also it is annoying that I need to click the same banners away on each 
 project I visit, many users visit Wikipedia, but also work on Commons, 
 Wikidata, etc.

I agree, that's something worth looking into - I assume it would need
additional technical work.

 I think the the CentralNotice should be redesigned or the CentralNotice will 
 loose it effectiveness. Something is really going wrong.


 Romaine

 (tech ambassador for nl Wikipedia)

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-09-10 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the third quarterly review of the Foundation's
Editor engagement experiments (E3) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editor_engagement_experiments/September_2013
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates on VE data analysis

2013-07-26 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:52 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:


 For example, why are you not providing a daily version of the hourly
 graph at http://ee-dashboard.wmflabs.org/graphs/enwiki_ve_hourly_by_ui
 ?
Note that if you are interested in VE edits per user type instead,
http://ee-dashboard.wmflabs.org/graphs/enwiki_ve_hourly_perc_by_user_type
already offers a smoothing option (click the spanner icon on the top
left), which can be set to 24 hours or more.

Everyone who previously cited (or relied on) information from draft
versions of the analysis on Meta should read the updates that Dario
has linked, because that information may have become obsolete.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-07-22 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the second quarterly review meeting of the
VisualEditor and Parsoid team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor-Parsoid/July_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis

2013-07-21 Thread Tilman Bayer
 is particularly intensive,
 but these days we now store such hashes directly in the database (though
 we store SHA-1 hashes, not MD5 hashes as the study used). Storing these
 hashes in the database saves researchers the need to compute the hashes
 themselves and allows MediaWiki and other software the ability to easily
 and quickly detect full reverts.

 MZMcBride

 P.S. Noting that this study is still a draft, I happened to notice a small
 typo on page nine: We tried to a as diverse as possible sample including
 West European [...]. Hopefully this can be corrected before formal
 publication.




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Tilman Bayer
I'd like to hijack this thread a bit to advertise
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files , for cases
when one sees a freely licensed video on YouTube that ought to be on
Commons too. With WebM available both  on YouTube (as one of several
download formats, for many videos) and on Commons (as upload format),
the transfer has become a lot easier, eliminating the time-consuming
conversion with ffmpeg2theora etc. And since earlier this year, the
chunked upload option on Commons allows uploading files beyond the
earlier 100MB limit (up to 500 MB currently).

It's admittedly offtopic here,  as in this case the video was
available both on Commons and on YT from the beginning, as Tomasz and
Victor have said. But for example I have noticed that some chapters
are uploading event videos to YT or Vimeo only, and it's also useful
for Google Hangout recordings, like those of the monthly metrics 
activities meetings.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 Hi,
 it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has
 been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people by
 default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube iframe /
 element.

 There's been a small discussion about this on IRC, and I've been asked to
 seek the opinion of the wider community on this matter, which I hope to
 achieve by starting a thread on this list.

 I wonder how the solution used in the banners reflects on our values,
 especially since we prefer to use a proprietary service over our own
 Wikimedia Commons, and effectively invite our users to expose their data
 (such as their IP address) to an external website (because no one's going to
 read the small information about YouTube privacy policy).

 I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to prefer
 YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I generally
 think that we should not include links to websites that can track our users
 in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that use Google Analytics
 for statistical purposes) definitely falls under that definition.

 [On an unrelated note, it might be worth pointing out that the video on
 YouTube is listed as CC-BY and as CC-BY-SA on Commons, which introduces
 confusion and might lead to creation of derivative works that are released
 without the ShareAlike clause, which - I believe - it's not what the author
 of the video was after.]

 == References ==
 * [1]
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillarsforceBannerDisplay=true

   Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-07-11 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
  On July 11th at the next WMF Metrics  Activities meeting, myself, Erik
  Möller, Howie Fung, Maryana Pinchuk, and Dario Taraborelli are going to
  deliver a short update on the state of Wikimedia editor communities. (For
  those not familiar:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings)

 This presentation will be at the meeting in 30 minutes. Don't worry if
 you're interested but can't make it; the meeting will be recorded.


 The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALT8_Toyc0g now.
And on a certain other website too:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting_July_11,_2013.webm
(as usually, the video will also be included in the monthly WMF report
and Wikimedia Highlights)

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-07-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the second quarterly review meeting of the
Wikipedia Zero team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/June_2013
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-06-25 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Briefly, from the train (so no links):

 1. The Wikipedia Challenge competitions were not community initiatives;
 they were Google initiatives.

 2. Agree with Nemo about tools' importance.

 3. I'd call out the Tamil Wikipedia Media Contest: great return on very
 modest investment (of funds); and the Malayalam WikiSangaMotsavam, a series
 of community and outreach events around a big community gathering, that
 correlates with a noticeable rise in active editors in MLWP.  Both are
 community initiatives supported by WMF grants.
I'm currently not on a train, so here are two links:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/20/postcard-from-the-tamil-community/
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WikiSangamotsavam_2012/Malayalam_Wiki_Conference_2012/Report

A.
 On Jun 25, 2013 11:05 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

  1) I'm confused: first you ask about community initiatives then you list
  activities by chapters and the like. Community initiative makes me
 think
  of edit drives, custom tools and scripts, processes, guidelines,
  configurations.
 

 Sorry for the confusion. I'm open to hearing about any non-WMF activity,
 but I assumed that people would be most knowledgeable
 about initiatives that came from chapters or other parts of the community.


  2) Are you interested in last year or all our history?
 

 Let's say since about 2011, with more recent being of primary interest.


   3) Is it really impossible to look for the impact on the statistics
  (assuming you're speaking of eiting activity) and then ask what caused
 the
  impact? How much big but indetected/undetectable impact is there? (There
  must be contrasting forces for that.) Are you interested in impact that
  can't be even seen in statistics?
 

 We're also looking at which projects are growing, so as you say, looking at
 the stats and then asking what caused it. If you are aware of a editor
 recruitment or retention activity that measured, I'd also be interested in
 hearing about that, even if it didn't necessarily make some kind of visible
  jump in the total active editors of a project.

 Steven

 P.S. Thanks to the folks who reached out off-list with examples.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF May 2013 Metrics and Activities Meeting: Thursday, June 6, 18:00 UTC

2013-06-07 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Juergen Fenn
schneeschme...@googlemail.com wrote:
 2013/6/7 Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de:

 [As it is a Google Calendar, you can embed it in any web page (there is an
 html code for that), or use it in your private calendar via csv / iCal]

 I wonder how long this will remain to be so? There was talk about
 Google lately  to close the free calendar APIs? So you might like to
 use a free replacement instead.


FWIW, last year's discussion about Google Calendar on this list:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/279464



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA related bill in Taiwan

2013-06-03 Thread Tilman Bayer
The EFF reports that this announcement by Taiwanese Wikimedians does
appear to have had an effect:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/taiwanese-users-thwart-government-plans-introduce-internet-blacklist-law

Taiwanese users were going to stage an Internet black out on Tuesday
June 4th. Several websites, including Wikipedia Taiwan and Mozilla
Taiwan pledged to go dark in order to raise awareness. ... After
several news outlets reported that the new initiative was akin to
mainland China’s “Great Firewall,” the Taiwanese intellectual property
office made an effort to reject the comparison ... In the face of
these criticisms and the planned blackout, the Taiwan Intellectual
Property Office abandoned this severe copyright law.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Ted Chien hsiangtai.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
 My dear colleagues,

 Recently on May 21 the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office has announced
 that they will amend the Copyright Act to demand local ISPs to block
 illegal contents on foreign websites, just like the SOPA bill in USA last
 year. For more information, you can read the following news reports:

 Focus Taiwan:
 http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aall/201305210035.aspx

 ZDNet:
 http://www.zdnet.com/cn/taiwans-copyright-act-amendment-proposal-comes-under-fire-715943/

 Now there are many Taiwan netizens protesting the bill:

 http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/26/netizens-fear-copyright-amendment-will-bring-web-filter-system-to-taiwan/

 But today we just see an news that TIPO just ignored these protests and
 insist that this bill will not harm the net freedom and rights of general
 users:

 http://newtalk.tw/news/2013/05/28/36854.html (it's in Chinese, you may use
 Google translate to read the news.)

 Indeed we should protect the copyright, but to ask ISPs to block websites
 is too over-reaction.

 We Wikimedia Taiwan is now against the bill and has just released an
 Chinese announcement on our official website to explain why we against the
 bill and ask the government to stop the act:

 http://bit.ly/ZbvTX0

 We also started an discussion on zh.wp to ask the community if we could put
 the announcement as an global site notice, we even think about blackout
 zh.wp for 24 hours (the date is still in discussion):

 http://goo.gl/fXi8g

 This is because according to Alexa.com (http://Alexa.com), Wikipedia is now
 the top 10 website in Taiwan. To blackout Wikipedia in Taiwan should get
 the attention of TIPO and has some effects.

 My questions are:

 * Could we ask for blackout Wikipedia (not just zh.wp) ONLY for Taiwan IP?
 (Some users from China hope this blackout will not effect them)
 * If we could not blackout Wikipedia only for Taiwan IP, could we ask to
 blackout zh.wp? (from what we have discussed on zh.wp, the Chinese
 community has agreed on such blackout, but the date is still on discussion)
 * If we could implement such blackout, how soon it can be done?
 * What suggestions from you that we should do as an local Chapter?

 Thanks and Regards,
 Ted Chien
 Chairman
 Wikimedia Taiwan
 --
 Blog: htttp://htchien.tw (http://htchien.tw/)
 Facebook: http://facebook.com/htchien
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/htchien
 LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/htchien
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-05-27 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:41 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Tilman,

 Is there a schedule for these reviews on Meta?
None that I know of. (I'm sure you already found the link to the
parent page - 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
- which has a list of past reviews.)

 Also, did Grants have a review recently?
Yes; I understand the minutes of the Grants team's quarterly review
will be posted shortly.

 Thanks,

 Pine

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-05-23 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes, pre-prepared notes and slides from the mid-year review
meeting of the Wikipedia Education Program team have now been posted
in a similar format at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Education_Program/May_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] making tech journalism easier to read

2013-05-22 Thread Tilman Bayer
 that – personally – I have no problems reading and
 understanding sentences spanning multiple pages, if they were written by
 Proust (who always has a reason), but I have big problems understanding
 texts which lack coherency and focus. English texts composed by many
 scattered short sentences, without conjunctions and other sentence
 connectors, are for me very painful to read. However, it seems most
 people prefer to have many small concepts and to connect the dots
 themselves to get the figure as they can.

 Nemo

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

2013-05-13 Thread Tilman Bayer
Hi Huib,

thanks for correcting your earlier claim in the main thread that you
were never notified about this kind of thing (although unfortunately
this correction comes only after your claim already contributed to
leaving MZ a little speechless and feeling more and more ...
distanced from Wikimedia).

I can confirm that this is the text of an email I sent you on November
16, 2011 when removing you from what was originally the blog comment
moderators list - with one crucial difference however:

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Huib,

 we are currently reorganizing the internal communication about the
 Foundation's blog, and in the process have just removed your subscription.
 The list is going to see more confidential information in the future, and
 we want to focus membership more on people who need to know it.

Curiously, here you left out one sentence from my 2011 email:

And while I don't want to pass judgment over your work on the
projects, the fact that you are currently blocked on Meta etc. makes
it difficult to justify keeping your access at the moment.


 I want to
 emphasize that this has nothing to do with your conduct as list member, and
 that your interest in and support for the WMF blog (e.g. tweeting new
 posts) is appreciated. You can still send messages to the list, they will
 just need to go through moderation.

 --
 Tilman Bayer
 Movement Communications
 Wikimedia Foundation
 IRC (Freenode): HaeB


 Strange that the blog is internal communications.

You mean that https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-blog
is not a public mailing list? It is my understanding that it was
originally created solely as a channel of notifications about new blog
comments that needed to be moderated; these obviously should not be
public. Later there were efforts to make it more into a venue of
internal coordination about the blog, although these did not quite pan
out.


 Even stranger is that Erik asked to create my account, he was completly ok
 with it. So I'm not sure what the information on the blog is so secret that
 no volunteers can see it...

Actually, you were the only volunteer removed at that point in 2011 -
there were at least four volunteers who I think are still on the list.
As indicated in the part of my email that you chose to quietly
suppress, a main reason to handle your case differently was that you
were at that time indefinitely blocked by the community on more than
one wiki (to cite the block log entry from nlwiki: Abusing multiple
accounts: general project disruption and cross-wiki disruption; trying
to evade bans on other projects, running unapproved bots and so on.
block per RfC and cu evidence. )

The fact that you are now trying to make your case by posting tampered
emails reinforces my confidence that it was the right decision to
remove you from this position of trust.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

2013-05-13 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
 Tillman,

 For the record, the time between your e-mail and my request why the rights
 where removed is FOUR days.

That's a completely wrong statement. I emailed you as soon as I
removed you from the wikimedia-blog list.

 So yes. I stay by my claim I had to find
 information myself. And showing the mails its visible that Jay didn't know
 about the fact you removed me either.

Which happened four months later. I guess we will have to accept your
criticism that Jay does not possess clairvoyant powers ;)

 So NO you didn't leave me a note when
 you did it. I get your note four days later.

Again you appear to be at least confusing things here, if not making
them up outright.


 Other volunteers also said they where removed, and I will not post that
 kind of e-mails online. But on the other mailing threat there you can read
 it yourself also.

 When I was placed on the Wikimedia Blog I was already blocked by the Dutch
 Wikipedia, That was no problem for Jay, Erik or the other people I worked
 with? When I was blocked on the dutch Wikipedia I was also a moderator on
 Commons, Meta, Incubator and a Member of the LangCOM and the LiCOM.

 So now your saying: You where / are blocked so you can't be trusted? I
 guess that makes you a complete asshole. Since the blocks and NL.wiki and
 lots of other wiki's are made of complete bullshit.

Well, as I said in my Nov 2011 email, I did not want to pass judgment
on your edits on other wikis, mainly because I hadn't fully read the
discussions reading to these blocks. But let's link those on Meta, so
others can make up their mind whether they were bullshit:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2011-07#Global_lock_for_Abigor

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2011-01#Global_block_and_lock_for_user:Abigor

Regarding no problem for Jay, Erik or the other people I worked
with, the first link has a comment by Philippe where he says that you
deception ... certainly shatters any expectation of trust with me.



 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi Huib,

 thanks for correcting your earlier claim in the main thread that you
 were never notified about this kind of thing (although unfortunately
 this correction comes only after your claim already contributed to
 leaving MZ a little speechless and feeling more and more ...
 distanced from Wikimedia).

 I can confirm that this is the text of an email I sent you on November
 16, 2011 when removing you from what was originally the blog comment
 moderators list - with one crucial difference however:

 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi Huib,
 
  we are currently reorganizing the internal communication about the
  Foundation's blog, and in the process have just removed your
 subscription.
  The list is going to see more confidential information in the future, and
  we want to focus membership more on people who need to know it.

 Curiously, here you left out one sentence from my 2011 email:

 And while I don't want to pass judgment over your work on the
 projects, the fact that you are currently blocked on Meta etc. makes
 it difficult to justify keeping your access at the moment.


  I want to
  emphasize that this has nothing to do with your conduct as list member,
 and
  that your interest in and support for the WMF blog (e.g. tweeting new
  posts) is appreciated. You can still send messages to the list, they will
  just need to go through moderation.
 
  --
  Tilman Bayer
  Movement Communications
  Wikimedia Foundation
  IRC (Freenode): HaeB
 
 
  Strange that the blog is internal communications.

 You mean that https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-blog
 is not a public mailing list? It is my understanding that it was
 originally created solely as a channel of notifications about new blog
 comments that needed to be moderated; these obviously should not be
 public. Later there were efforts to make it more into a venue of
 internal coordination about the blog, although these did not quite pan
 out.

 
  Even stranger is that Erik asked to create my account, he was completly
 ok
  with it. So I'm not sure what the information on the blog is so secret
 that
  no volunteers can see it...

 Actually, you were the only volunteer removed at that point in 2011 -
 there were at least four volunteers who I think are still on the list.
 As indicated in the part of my email that you chose to quietly
 suppress, a main reason to handle your case differently was that you
 were at that time indefinitely blocked by the community on more than
 one wiki (to cite the block log entry from nlwiki: Abusing multiple
 accounts: general project disruption and cross-wiki disruption; trying
 to evade bans on other projects, running unapproved bots and so on.
 block per RfC and cu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

2013-05-13 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 13 May 2013 12:00, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 ...
 Curiously, here you left out one sentence from my 2011 email:

 And while I don't want to pass judgment over your work on the
 projects, the fact that you are currently blocked on Meta etc. makes
 it difficult to justify keeping your access at the moment.

 If you did not want to pass judgement in 2011, you certainly seem to
 be making up for that retrospectively now. Perhaps it might have been
 the better path to stick to that principle, rather than put this
 damning email out in public, particularly an email officially from the
 Wikimedia Foundation rather than a personal one.

 By the way, I am unclear, was the email you are quoting extensively
 from, rather than summarizing, a public correspondence, or are you
 choosing to publish it now, on a permanently and publicly archived
 email list, two year later?

 Fae

Hi Fae,

I believe you may be confusing me and Huib here (perhaps because of
the similarity of our volunteer user names?). It was not me who posted
the content of a private email to this list without the sender's
permission. Only after this had already happened I corrected the
tampered quotation of what I had written, because this silent omission
greatly distorted the sense and context of the divulged email.


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

2013-05-13 Thread Tilman Bayer
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


  1   2   >