Dear Community Members,
The Affiliations Committee has put together a public response to the
Board's decision to express the dissatisfaction with the process and
outcome of the decision, and thereby the opportunity lost to actually
discuss and address the Board's underlying concerns. This
Phoebe,
I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am
still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to the
decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what
was going to be discussed exactly.
Regarding your earlier comments
Mark, 13/02/2014 00:58:
In other projects this doesn't seem to be as big of a deal. I'm a heavy
participant in OpenStreetMap, which is an organization legally based in
the UK. That's a country I have no connection to at all. But it doesn't
really matter, because the OSM Foundation does things I
Hi Greg!
A few fast notes before I go to bed :)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote:
Phoebe,
I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am
still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to the
Quick follow-up question and comment -
Is there any reason for affiliates to feel they should now at least plan
for possible caps on other areas? Does that absolutely seem unlikely
(granted anything is possible) or not really something the board can
comment on more firmly - which I suspect will
On 11 Feb 2014, at 20:18, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
Your decision is not you should have a good track
record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have
I think perhaps this financial benefit discussion has taken us a bit
off track. This thread has a wealth of well-informed commentary, the
majority of it coming from volunteers; for most, any financial
benefit is the result of expenses being (partially) covered to carry
out these volunteer
Le 12/02/2014 03:14, Mark a écrit :
On 2/11/14, 9:18 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks
and funds. This is what user groups were designed to allow, with
minimal overhead. These two ideas were combined into be a user group
for two
On 2/12/14, 10:55 PM, Mathias Damour wrote:
I like that initiatives such as the individual-engagement grants,
user-group recognition, etc. are opening up more avenues for
Wikimedian organizations, organized along different lines, to find a
more recognized (and funded) role in the movement.
I
Hoi,
Yes, people employed by the WMF working from outside the USA exis. They are
very much part of what WMF does and, there is no trickle back to the
local countries really. They are part of the WMF structure and their
priorities are the WMF priorities.
There is a huge potential outside the USA
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow
the
What I can say about this new-old not surprising decision?
When WMDE posted their feedback about the FDC, the responses from the
board/fdc was wait, we want to finish 2 years cycle and then talk about
the it. Of course it didn't stopped the WMF, before having such a
discussion, to decide and limit
phoebe ayers, 11/02/2014 06:33:
The Board also decided
that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).
A very unfortunate slowdown. What a
Itzik Edri skrev 2014-02-11 09:26:
makes the FDC kind of powerless, having to face him over the next 2 year with
a
really hard decisions about really limiting the allocation for the
chapters, without of course, having enough time, knowledge or resources for
them to prepare for self
On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
Hi Phoebe,
thanks for your answer !
It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
Dear Frederic,
On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
Hi Phoebe,
thanks for your answer !
It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
the
Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia? The
board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public
discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a
grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so
I'm not
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear. I'm referring to the
current consensus of the community, i.e., the feedback being received about
this decision.
Cynthia
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that
While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was
Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
Your decision is not you should have a good track
record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws.
Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not
Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, dear Wikimedians,
I would like to share a few thoughts and questions with you. Thoughts
and questions that I would love to see being addressed when talking
about these movement issues. I have the feeling that this substantial
decision is
One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
time, but then caps those funds in the same decision. It is easy to tell
the org to just find some outside funding (which is mentioned in the FAQ) -
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote:
One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
time, but then caps those funds in the same decision.
One quick
2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com:
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.
Cristian
[1]
Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support. For the
purposes of board votes, it's majority +1.
I'm actually quite pleased that the
Speaking in my personal capacity, I echo the surprise that the Board has
decided to move a motion before they had full or close to full consensus on
the issue - which is in general a departure from the usual.
I can only assume that there was a better reason behind the urgency than
the need to
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote:
While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have
2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support. For the
purposes of board
Hi Greg and all,
This is not a direct reply to your points, but I think it might be helpful
in removing the cloak of mystery from all this.
Here is what happened during the board meeting, from my perspective.*
Background context:
* The board has been discussing movement roles for
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
For me in these debates about funding, which often present the staff on
one
side pushing to reduce the relative power and centrality of chapters on
one
side and chapter representatives pushing the opposite way on the other
side,
On 2/11/14, 9:18 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks
and funds. This is what user groups were designed to allow, with
minimal overhead. These two ideas were combined into be a user group
for two years.
This part I do think is a good
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.comwrote:
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of
us are
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my
fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at
all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything
Le 12 févr. 2014 04:20, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
Trustees, FDC and
Hi all,
I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions
that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately
pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow
the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding
(which the foundation did try and did not succeed very well)
i am disappointed personally by you. you as a
phoebe ayers wrote:
The decisions are published in the meeting minutes here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
There is also a FAQ on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ
Thanks for putting this together. I made a few tweaks to the FAQ; it
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER
rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:
pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow
the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding
(which the foundation
rupert THURNER wrote:
i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american,
and you as a board member of the foundation.
What about Phoebe as a woman? Or Phoebe as a librarian? Or as a
brassratgirl? Horrors.
Your unnecessary hyperbole aside, I see Phoebe's role as a Wikimedia
I think there needs to a basic rule of if you can get Max and I to
disagree with you for the same reasons, you're probably in the wrong ;p
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:20 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
rupert THURNER wrote:
i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as
On 11/02/14 06:33, phoebe ayers wrote:
I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions
that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
status. In a nutshell, the Board
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER
rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:
pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow
the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding
(which the foundation
43 matches
Mail list logo
