On 29/04/2015 10:57, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
In fact, one could experiment with adding WMF as an organization equal
to chapters to elections of chapter seats, and banning WMF/chapters
employees from community seats elections altogether ;) But
seriously, I think the practical thing to do
Some questions though - if WMUK staff are included, should WUG staff also
be included? If they are included, why not include the people doing
staff-level volunteer work for non-staffed affiliates? If those volunteers
are included, what about user group leaders who are not active editors?
User
Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a wrong
signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules suggest
to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything which a
client does not see, I.e
Content or software, is administrative.
Rupert
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:03 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a wrong
signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules suggest
to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything
Again, this email is not speaking officially for the committee, see my
earlier messages for more official thoughts. This is a long-winded
personal opinion.
As James said, exceptions is a technical term and not really the best way
to think of these groups. Which is why it is not one that we use on
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
wrote:
Some questions though - if WMUK staff are included, should WUG staff also
be included? If they are included, why not include the people doing
staff-level volunteer work for non-staffed affiliates? If those
Hi Greg,
Yes these are questions.
I suggest that if you expect the community to address them, that a
meaningful open process of consultation is run. As discussion of this
proposal has already taken a year, and may take months rather than
weeks going forward, it would be great if someone who has
hi James,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
*Staff: *I have always thought that the Staff need to be considered part of
the community.
I think the main thing is why should WMF staff be treated any differently
than WMDE, WMFR, or WMUK staff.
Nathan - that is a fair opinion - but not one shared by everyone. There are
many that feel staff who do not edit much should be allowed to participate
- I happen to agree.
It might not address concerns brought up by others about non-staff related
issues.
Also, there are some that have stated
Fae,
I should be clearer - I do not expect the community to address these issues
before the topic of a standing elections committee is addressed first. I
think that is my main point here. These issues are not as simple as some
are presenting, and that does not mean the ultimate answers are not
Thanks for the summary. I look forward to an open consultation process when
the elections committee sorts itself out.
Until that time discussion here, and that over the past year, is not a good
use of volunteer time, as it cannot change anything. This could have been a
useful reply up front.
Fae
I shared a few times already that change was unlikely this year and that this
should be left to a standing committee. I believe James did the same thing as
well. Other text was offering explanation on why and thoughts for that group -
as I stated. Apologies if that was not clearer.
-greg
tldr: At this point, the requirements will not be changed for this election
cycle. I recognize on one level this change seems as simple as changing the
election Meta page, but as we realized in discussion, in execution, it
requires a bit more than that. See my last thread for more information on
Any response or input from the Election Committee?
*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
Any response or input from the Election Committee?
I think Greg said it relatively well earlier as the coordinator
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
Any response or input from the Election Committee?
I think Greg said it relatively well earlier as the coordinator for the
committee (I am it's staff advisor). At this point the committee has
decided on
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
Any response or input from the Election
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So do I. :) (Indeed, I have had occasion to remind, uh, a colleague, that
editing Wikipedia or its sister projects is a bit of an unusual hobby, and
that it's Perfectly Fine to not choose to volunteer to do that on your
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
would not otherwise have had eligibility
-0400
From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
already elect two
Greetings,
Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I wanted to share some info
on where things stand right now with this year's elections.
1. The committee did discuss the issue of affiliate staff having a vote. It
appears that a number of affiliates (not all) allow their staff to
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
equivalent of
+1
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move
Personally, I'm less concerned about staff votes than I am about having
only a relatively small number of community members vote. If there is a
substantial turnout of community votes then the enfranchisement of staff is
a non-issue. I think there would be more cause for concern if is only 1800
Two quick notes:
1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote.
2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one
of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by
the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as
Re: Gregory. I did not mean incorporation in the legal sense, rather, I
meant it in the community sense, sorry for not being clear :). To clarify,
I am not opposed to lowering the barriers to entry, I am opposed to doing
both that and this, too.
I see two threads of thought here, automatically
Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level.
This is a
I was speaking in support of keeping the current policy which allows WMF
staff to vote even if they do not meet the eligibility guidelines with a
volunteer account.
The issue of allowing staff in affiliated organizations who are not
volunteers vote is more complex because they could have minimal
That was three notes - not two - sorry. ;P
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two quick notes:
1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote.
2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one
of
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
So do I. :)
Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on
The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members
of the community. So if we decide that employees of community
organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then
they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of
Trustees. Whether
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the
decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for.
Yeah, no COI there *at all*.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the
decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for.
Yeah, no COI there *at all*.
Er, no more than any staff member of the
On 22 April 2015 at 19:26, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
...
At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization
(GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of
making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an
Yes, that would be desirable.
However, I don't mind if WMF employees use their staff account to vote,
provided that it meets eligibility criteria because of edits or patches.
Il 07/10/2014 09:50, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel ha scritto:
Hey,
After reading all the emails so far, I more and more
Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 07/10/2014 09:50:
I hope next year election committee will take it in consideration.
Why hope? Just create the rules page on Meta with the amended criteria
which just found consensus. They can then be worked on from there.
Nemo
On 7 October 2014 00:57, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
IMO the election must be run by a third party, as happened prior to
2013, by SPI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest
Hey,
After reading all the emails so far, I more and more thinking that the
correct way will be to remove the specific WMF criteria - allowing every
community member to participate in the election by voting using his
*personal* (not staff/dev account), what give the same equal power to staff
from
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is eligible
on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
Caveats:
This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a
I d really love to have a simple voting right without exceptions, simple to
explain. This than could be adopted as well by chapters and thematic orgs
to distinguish between active and other members. I.e. have a number of
billable contributions to Wikipedia or commons or be a registered
developer.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
than a year, and many dont look likely
John, please explain what your point is here. I mean really, picking on
individual people who voted in the election? That's crossing the line,
especially as they met the voting eligibility criteria for the election
involved, which happened 16 months ago. I expect better from you.
If you would
On 10/06/2014 11:29 PM, Risker wrote:
John, please explain what your point is here. I mean really, picking on
individual people who voted in the election?
Risked, I don't think Jay had a point beyond answering the question Are
there many staffers who vote that wouldn't otherwise have been
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
John, please explain what your point is here. I mean really, picking on
individual people who voted in the election? That's crossing the line,
especially as they met the voting eligibility criteria for the election
involved,
Hey,
Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided that
we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
raise the discussion enough time before.
According to the current
Hi Itzik,
If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
elections for their own orgs.
I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.
However, in all non-autocratic republics
Pine,
As far as I know, government employees in most of the countries can vote
only if they are citizens. So yes, of course we are not taking there
democratic voice. As I didn't said a staff member can't vote because he is
a staff member. Just saying that it is not enough to be a staff member in
The title should be WMF Board of Trustee elections.
Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 05/10/2014 09:40:
For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes.
And this is the issue we should be talking about: the ~99.5 % abstention
rate.*
By comparison, the
number of WMF staff this days is 218,
Is there a way in which people who volunteer, but not through editing or
coding, can vote? For example, Wikimania volunteers from this year, or
those who volunteer time with financial or administrative matters rather
than through adding content?
On 5 Oct 2014 11:44, Federico Leva (Nemo)
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
(*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
transparency this week.
Just to clarify so that I know what you're looking and can try and
prioritize it. You are looking for the total number of
I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
of the electorate. When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their numbers were
small and they were too small a constituency to sway the result on their
A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is eligible
on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
Caveats:
This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point but far
from perfect, among other things:
- It doesn't include 100%
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
Pine,
As far as I know, government employees in most of the countries can vote
only if they are citizens. So yes, of course we are not taking there
democratic voice. As I didn't said a staff member can't
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net
wrote:
I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
of the electorate. When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their
How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.
Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
Pine,
IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
be
On 5 October 2014 13:35, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
Pine,
IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.
An interesting question, I think, is /whether/ anyone from
On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
even with wikitech and foundation
On 5 October 2014 10:00, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.
Hey Pine,
Progress is pretty good. As noted in Erik's presentation at Monthly Metrics
last Thursday, we're wrapping up
Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?
(What is with half of the WMF staff responding to routine emails on
weekends? All you workaholics and overachievers...) :)
Pine
On Oct 5, 2014 8:55 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 5 October 2014 10:00, Pine W
On 5 October 2014 22:08, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?
Not at this stage, I'm afraid. I will only give a date when I can say with
some confidence that we can meet it, and there are too many free variables
for me to be able to say
Just to reiterate, the engineering work is almost done. We do plan to begin
the community engagement and announcements in 2014, but it's going to take
a while to make sure everyone's contacted and to give them time to digest
the announcement and act accordingly.
As we're almost done with the
66 matches
Mail list logo
