Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to communicate compassionately with non-native English speakers

2016-07-07 Thread Vituzzu
I have a similar feeling while reading this article: the author has the 
best intentions but her attitude in doing them is way so wrong.


Il 07/07/2016 10:32, Bence Damokos ha scritto:

I for one do not really understand the point you are making..., especially
as it relates to best practices in communicating across cultures and
linguistic backgrounds.

Best regards,

On Thursday, 7 July 2016, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

You forget the other part that is so vital. Compassion is for the weak, it
puts you in a superior position. The problem is much more in the
understanding of what someone else has to say. It is not only about
sending, it is as much about receiving. Listening, understanding is where
we have a problem. Not so much in the choice of words.

On 7 July 2016 at 09:50, Michael Jahn > wrote:

"it is not so much
the words that are used but it is understanding what points are made and
how they challenge the status quo."

--> This may be true, and what we should strive for as a movement. But


still need words to make those points, and while one may fail to


what points are being made, even if all the words are understood


the opposite makes the difference. If you _don't_ understand the words in
the first place, i. e. attribute a different meaning than the
speaker/author had intended, you _cannot_ be in a position to understand
the points.
So, thanks Nick, for sharing! I like your post very much.
Am 07.07.2016 9:35 vorm. schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" < >:

I have been thinking about what you say. The problem I see is that your
attitude is one where you have to be compassionate for the benefit of
people for whom English is a second language. What this means is that


see yourself as superior because your English is so great and they

have a

problem with English or Anglo culture.The logical conclusion is


that English and Angloism has to be central to what we do.

This is the Wikimedia list and when you follow this list, it is people


all over the world that subscribe and comment. It is highly biased by


think and I have observed that there is little willingness to consider
notions that do not fit in well with the group think.The biggest



this is not language but an unwillingness to consider arguments.

It is easy to say "we have to be compassionate" and because of that we


to choose our words well. It is tough to consider that it is not so


the words that are used but it is understanding what points are made


how they challenge the status quo.

On 5 July 2016 at 21:59, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) >


A good essay.

TL;DR: Some detailed examples of how to improve communication and
interactions, for the benefit of anyone who uses English as a second

Excerpts, to whet [sharpen or stimulate] your appetite:

Phrasal verbs in English can be particularly hard to master. Just


about “cut off” vs. “cut up” vs. “cut over” vs. “cut in” vs. “cut



“cut down” vs. “cut back” and you’ll see how confusing it can be when


recommend “cutting back” on something, or asking someone to “cut it



Make your message very clear, especially your request. This is


true for me, because I work with Germans, who are famously direct.


American habit of softening and burying a request is just confusing


pointless to them.

The last thing you and I want to do is overwhelm. We work across


barriers, not because it’s glamorous or fun or easy, but because we


about collaborating with people who are different from us [...]. And
non-native speakers are committing to this collaboration even more



are: they’re reaching out to us by working in English. [...]

n.b. Yes, there are some over-generalizations and stereotypes in


It's still good overall, though! ;-)

I'd like to link it on Metawiki, but I'm not sure where; Any


I've gotten (happily) lost in the [[Multilingual]] disambig page, and


[[Grants:Learning patterns]] pages, but the only place I can find


collects advice like this, is the first section at - What


might I have missed?

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Media Websites Battle Faltering Ad Revenue and Traffic"

2016-04-18 Thread Vituzzu
Most of dynamical system have a cyclic fashion: if google and facebook 
will cannibalize content makers they'll run out of contents. In the bush 
under the fallen giants a new generation of wannabe-monopolists will 
eventually grow. Our ancestors were sort of rats escaping from 
dinosaurs' feet.

Anyway we don't want to be cannibalized, so it's, still and again, time 
to find a strategy.


Il 18/04/2016 23:15, Andreas Kolbe ha scritto:

Thanks, Pine. Some stand-out quotes from the article:

*85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising will go to Google
or Facebook, said Brian Nowak, a Morgan Stanley analyst.*

*Facebook also announced that it would open up Instant Articles — which
encourage publishers to post their content directly to Facebook — to “any
publisher.” ...*

*... the rate at which links to outside websites are shared on Facebook,
compared with videos and Instant Articles, has declined. ...*

*Mr. Denton, once known for harsh assessments of the media business, struck
a conciliatory tone. “The Instant Articles deal seems great,” he said in an
interview last week. “Users get relevant stories and relevant ads. It’s the
realization of that particular Internet dream.*

Wikipedia is being re-packaged and re-branded in the Knowledge Graph, the
Amazon Echo, in Facebook, and so forth, complete with ads and commercial

In much the same way, media companies' content is about to be packaged and
re-branded in Facebook, with part of the ad money going to Facebook instead
of the people who researched, wrote and checked the content. (At least the
content producers are getting *some* of the money from Facebook, unlike
Wikimedia, which gets nothing.)

Consumer behaviour is turning Google and Facebook into ultra-rich
behemoths, creating a media landscape dominated by monopolists that know
everything about you: what you read, what you buy, what you're thinking
about, who your friends are.

Sometimes I think 1984 will come. It'll just be fifty years late.


On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Pine W  wrote:

This article is interesting in light of discussions about Wikimedia
readership, audience, and fundraising, so I'm passing along the link for
anyone else who might be interested.

Sounds like Wikimedia has a lot of company in struggling with traffic and
audience. It might be interesting for WMF to have some dialogue with
content-producing organizations about this subject.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread Vituzzu

Il 19/03/2016 13:57, Gnangarra ha scritto:

​outside the US things like copyright isnt  respected, enforced or even
part of a person education

Not really.

  We also have
the URAA which even Commons has struggled with swings in interpretation
over the last few years

Definitely a fail of common law ;)
Seriously I think Wikimedia should somehow escape from being *so* 
affected by USA law.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

2016-02-27 Thread Vituzzu
Reinstatement *now* would be an extra drama. The board must simply be 
ready to see him "selected" again by the community.

Those events opened almost every door and every window of our ecosystem: 
focusing our attention on "names" is a waste of time now. Now it's time 
to focus on strategy, ideas and architecture.


Il 27/02/2016 11:35, John Mark Vandenberg ha scritto:

If the board can not back up Jimmy's assertion he has removed for cause, I
am pretty confident the community will 'select' James again, just as soon
as they are given an opportunity.

John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

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

2016-02-01 Thread Vituzzu

Il 01/02/2016 14:54, Fæ ha scritto:

A summary of the total number of posts from people going over the 30
post limit in the last 4 months, with one person having gone over 30
posts for 3 months running:

October: none
November: 39
December: 33, 35
January: 31, 32, 32

Then the trend is getting closer and closer to the 30 emails/month limit.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

2016-01-30 Thread Vituzzu

Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

I think you meant to link this one?

Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D

Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt 
with it as that was a good-faith edit.
As said I don't want to criticise him but this is, imvho, a sign of an 
overall lack of attention by us to potential harassment/libel/outing 


(meanwhile BDA, the troll above, is being "helped" by a good-faith user 
to reinstate his contents, but that's a different matter)

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

2016-01-30 Thread Vituzzu
A similar situation happened to me: 
or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted 
because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request 
file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.

I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but 
I feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use 

Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of 
"tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed 
at harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction, 
regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.


Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
order to link it here):

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

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

2016-01-29 Thread Vituzzu

Simplest and wisest solution on both short and medium term.


Il 29/01/2016 16:27, Patricio Lorente ha scritto:

Dear all,

I am happy to announce the Board intends to fill the open community Trustee
seat at our meeting this weekend. On Saturday, María Sefidari will accept
an appointment to the Board of Trustees, stepping into the third
community-nominated seat. The appointment will last the remainder of the
two year term, until Wikimania 2017.

Many of you know María. She previously served as a community-selected
Trustee from August 2013 to July 2015. In the most recent 2015 community
elections, she received the next highest support percentage, and highest
number of support votes. She was born and lives in Madrid, Spain, and has
been a contributor to the Wikimedia projects since 2006. She was a founding
member of Spanish Wikipedia's LGBT Wikiproject, Wikimedia España, and
Wikimujeres Grupo de Usuarias. She has also served on the Affiliations and
Individual Engagement Grants committees. María is passionate about the role
of diversity in our strategic efforts to retain and increase editorship,
and improving channels for community participation in Foundation governance
and policymaking.

We consulted with the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee before
deciding how to proceed in identifying a new Trustee. They offered
thoughtful feedback on the possible available options, and we’re grateful
for their considerations. (


We are certain many of you are wondering why we decided against holding
another election. We did consider the option, but the disadvantages
outweighed the benefits. The last election was well-attended, and still
quite recent. Holding a new election would take considerable time, and we
have important issues to address in the near future. It was important to us
that the community perspective is fully represented in these conversations,
without delay. We also didn’t want to distract from the affiliate Trustee
selection process, which is coming up soon.

I am excited by the dedication, compassion, and experience María brings to
the Board at a crucial time. We are confident she will serve our mission
with wisdom and grace.

Please join me in congratulating our friend María, and thanking her service
to our movement.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

2016-01-27 Thread Vituzzu

Thank you Arnnon.


Il 27/01/2016 21:52, Patricio Lorente ha scritto:

Dear All,

Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
us to move forward.

The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
community, and also to Arnnon.

Patricio and Alice

Patricio Lorente
Chair, Board of Trustees

Alice Wiegand
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Piloting a Discourse installation for discussion (was: Better thankspam)

2016-01-23 Thread Vituzzu

Il 23/01/2016 21:34, Milos Rancic ha scritto:

I am speaking as an admin, not as a user :P

In brief, software is not stable. And it's not just that, but the
developers don't know their software well enough to offer a sensible
installation guide. I wouldn't use such software.
Let's say we can use it for open/public mailing lists. Though we're 
currently using a pretty outdated mailman version so we are not so safe.

Besides that, if there is no Docker environment (and I don't think so
there is a Docker environment in WMF, though my information could be
outdated), you have to create a double layer system just to install it
according to their specification.

Afair there's

Said so, I am sure there are masochists around, willing to install it :P

Me neither, but it's worth a try neither me and you will have to handle :p


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-17 Thread Vituzzu

Il 17/01/2016 00:49, Risker ha scritto:

Hmm.  The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very
search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often in
the top 3), thus leading to the usage and donations that we need to
survive. If they have to pay, then they might prefer to change their
algorithm, or reduce the frequency of scraping (thus also failing to catch
updates to articles including removal of vandalism in the lead paragraphs,
which is historically one of the key reasons for frequently crawling the
same articles).  Those crawlers are what attracts people to our sites, to
read, to make donations, to possibly edit.  Of course there are lesser
crawlers, but they're not really big players.
As usual you nailed it! That's why I wrote "negotiation" implying any 
extra cost should be fairly modulated but also it shouldn't force over 
the tops to leave our services.

I'm at a loss to understand why the Wikimedia Foundation should take on the
costs and indemnities associated with hiring staff to create a for-pay API
that would have to meet the expectations of a customer (or more than one
customer) that hasn't even agreed to pay for access.  If they want a
specialized API (and we've been given no evidence that they do), let THEM
hire the staff, pay them, write the code in an appropriately open-source
way, and donate it to the WMF with the understanding that it could be
modified as required, and that it will be accessible to everyone.

+1 is not enough let's +1e12

It is good that the WMF has studied the usage patterns.  Could a link be
given to the report, please?  It's public, correct?  This is exactly the
point of transparency.  If only the WMF has the information, then it gives
an excuse for the community's comments to be ignored "because they don't
know the facts".  So let's lay out all the facts on the table, please.

From Lila's ongoing choices I'm pretty sure they will.

Il 17/01/2016 03:11, Denny Vrandecic ha scritto:

To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current
crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide
more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs, etc.
These will be simply expensive to operate. Not for infrequent users - say,
to the benefit of us 70,000 editors - but for use cases that involve tens
or millions of requests per day. These have the potential of burning a lot
of funds to basically support the operations of commercial companies whose
mission might or might not be aligned with our.
Then a good synthesis would be "let's Google(*) fund scholarships/summer 
of codes/whatever to build new functionalities then make Google 
reimburse (**) our facilities' usage/increase our userbase(***)".

(*) by "Google" I mean any big player
(**) by "reimburse" I mean give us a fairly and proportionally 
determined amount of money based upon *actual* exploitation of our 
hardware/networking resources. This "reimburse" could also be colo space 
or whatever we'd need.
(***) as several people already pointed out we're in a symbiotic 
relationship with Google (and others): they need our knowledge, we need 
their traffic. As long as our sectors are distinct all is right with the 

IMHO there's room to increase our advantages without breaking the 
symbiosis but, above all, without missing our mission.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-16 Thread Vituzzu
I agree, we shouldn't fee anything but a "reimburse" for the massive 
usage of our hardware/networking resources would be ok.

Using over the tops' facilities would be great but it would also bring 
to privacy concerns.

Finally if an over the top wants some further feature it can fund 
scholarships, easy, transparent and without any side effect.


Il 16/01/2016 17:22, Peter Southwood ha scritto:

I agree with Todd on most, possibly all points, but if Google want to finance 
faster access for their search engine, in way of hardware, software or 
development, with no strings attached, as long as it puts no-one at a 
disadvantage at the time or in future, then why not?

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [] On Behalf Of 
Todd Allen
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:02 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no".
(My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so 
I'll refrain.)

I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all 
purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many ways as possible to make 
that reuse easy by anyone who wants to, whether that reuser be a multibillion 
dollar tech company or a kid in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a fundamental 
principle that no one, ever, should be charged to access, reuse, whatever have 
you, Wikimedia content. Not even if they could afford to pay.

Conversely, Google should never get a foot in the door to control Wikimedia or Mediawiki. 
And anyone who's writing a check holds some cards. Big check, lot of cards. If they want 
to donate to Wikimedia (and it'd be in their interest to, they certainly make significant 
use of our content), great! If they want to donate with strings attached, thanks but no 
thanks. We're certainly not hurting for money. If they want to pull a recurring donation 
if we do or don't do something, the answer should always be "Sorry to see you go. 
Thanks for the donations in the past."

I am becoming more and more convinced that the formal vote of no confidence Fae keeps 
putting forth is in fact necessary. And I don't exactly often agree with Fae, nor am I 
the Wikipediocracy "Beat up Wikipedia and Wikimedia at every opportunity" type. 
Rather, it's out of deep concern and care for the project I've spent a lot of time 
helping to build, and a lot of other people have too. I don't want to take that step, but 
this has got to stop, here and now.


On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood <> wrote:

What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the
costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like
that, it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs.

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [] On
Behalf Of Andrea Zanni
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Do you think?

I'm genuinely not sure.
I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our
data and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their
Knowledge Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not
supposed to share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or 
they can keep it hidden.

There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?


On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <>

On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of


Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for
the Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium
access to


services and APIs,

Brace yourselves...

expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, providing
specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free access to the
existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in line
with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
innovation in the Foundation's activities, and other potential


The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these
potential strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.

Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but
charging for premium access is likely to annoy the community to a
degree that will make the great Visual 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-16 Thread Vituzzu

Thank you for sharing this but, above all, to focus on digging real data.

IMHO we shouldn't forget our mission, so licenses must be as free as 
possible. Turning into something "more closed" would definitely deplete 
one of the most valuable source (the open source world) of volunteering 
we have.

Crawlers' owner should definitely share our increasing expenses but any 
kind of agreement with them should include ways to improve our userbase. 
I'm wondering about an agreement with Google (or any other player) to 
add an "edit" button to knowledge graph. Sort of a "knowledge vs. users" 

So, we definitely need a long term strategy which the Foundation will 
pursue in *negotiating* with anyone who wants a big scale access to *our 
resources* (while access to our knowledge will have no limits, as usual).


Il 16/01/2016 19:21, Lila Tretikov ha scritto:

To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I
don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and
rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core of
the issue we are facing.

Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in
the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together. We
have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will
help guide us.

Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet
as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started
the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or
human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big
issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot.

We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license
supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet
it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and
reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from
our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons) and
ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people
on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time.

Meanwhile estimated half of our hosting is used to support crawlers that
scan our content. This has an associated cost in infrastructure, power,
servers, employees to support some well-funded organizations. The content
is used for a variety of commercial purposes, sometimes having nothing to
do with putting our contributor's work in front of more readers. Still, we
can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission.

As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline
will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will
decline as well.

The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely
on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this
challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do
so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to
Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more
people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into
our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund
this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a
trend that has been accelerating)?

Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some
uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The
conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join it.


On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter 

If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, one
simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial
restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An
added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional donations
of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
allowing Google to have a priviledged position.  There is no way around
What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking
money.  And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at
least not to the community.

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
in the sum of all knowledge." XD

Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:

I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of


Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access

to the

services and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Better thankspam

2016-01-14 Thread Vituzzu
These days those messages are the best stuffs sent to this list, I'm 
definitely not bored by them. Anyone subscribing this list knows is a 
500 emails/months list.


Il 13/01/2016 19:15, Milos Rancic ha scritto:

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Chris Keating

To me, "Hello" and "Thank you" are quite under-used words on this list (in
the movement generally but particularly here) so I would prefer we didn't
rule these emails out.

After all, if we remove pile-on positive threads that contain little
information then pile-on negative threads with equally little information
will probably still remain.

Although I am quite rarely sending "thank you" messages (OK, it's not
just "quite rarely", as I sent it once and it was privately to Cary
Bass), I tend to agree with Chris. This list is quite tough and it's
nice to see thanking and welcoming threads, no matter if I am not
reading them.

As sending those messages is quite controllable -- meaning that people
from WMF/chapters/similar structures are doing that, I think simple
addition into the subject line like "[notification]" would allow those
who don't like to filter such messages.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

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

2016-01-08 Thread Vituzzu

Il 09/01/2016 01:08, Thomas Goldammer ha scritto:

2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

Our board made the decision to give Lila a
second chance in the face of staff mistrust.

Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?


I wonder how did this kind of leak weigh in removal.

Anyway it's terribly interesting.

Apart from drama, allegations, mistrust, etc. I think no one can 
disagree the whole process is terribly broken.
Before defying any "strategy", any "vision", any [put a cool word here] 
we should re-start from the basics of what the Board is supposed to be 
but, above all, *how* it is supposed to work.

What I read made me  think James' removal was harsh but still fair. But 
if so many people are disappointed then there's something wrong with the 

Shit happens, leaks happen, mistake happens. It seems current 
Foundation-side architecture lies upon the assertion no Board member, no 
higher staff will ever break bad. Also, it seems to forget our universe 
is run by volunteering. Till now we were so lucky (or at least most of 
troubles were internally sanitized).

I belong to the "pure online" class of volunteers and I don't feel so 
comfortable with a Board which seems to be turning into a Silicon Valley 
management board, denying our nature. Surely WMF financial dimensions 
need a professional management but this kind of skill (and stability) 
should come from a motivated staff instead of from a de facto co-opted 


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: