Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-30 Thread effe iets anders
Thank you Nat,

Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I
agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much,
before an updated process is decided upon.

Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the
board? I think we all would like the board to be as fully informed as
possible about this topic, and I couldn't reasonably expect all board
members to read all discussions about this topic. I could for example
imagine that you invite the framers of the open letter to provide a short
presentation as well. This would be in acknowledgement that it's a very
complex task for any team to collect data and insights that are contrary to
what they saw as their instructions for several years.

As I also referred to in my 'asymmetry of power' comment in response to the
executive statement on meta earlier, I believe this is core to many
objections when highly disputed decisions are being made by the board: the
voice of the part of the community that strongly feels about and disagrees
with the proposal, is not in the room to make their case. I know there are
some attempts being made in the strategy process to address this, but
perhaps in the same spirit, the board could experiment a little with being
more inclusive of such voices - especially now that is technically trivial
as the meetings are all online anyway.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:27 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread James Salsman
Hi Zack,

I filled out a survey request for "The Wiki Foundation".

Some of the text of the survey indicated that the legal department thought
that there could be a problem with that possibility, but didn't say why, so
I asked for the source for the claim I quoted in the survey.

How many questions (or, if it's easier '?' question marks) are currently in
the responses to your survey questions? Would you please publish them along
with your answers?

Best regards,
Jim


On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > briefing on discussions happening;
> > >
> > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > > posted publicly after the meeting;
> > >
> > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
> not
> > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> > stop,
> > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
> discussion
> > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> > >
> > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> > about
> > > the Brand project.
> > >
> > > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> > renaming
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
I think the problem is that you appear to have misread what he wrote, or
maybe confused him with someone else entirely. Or are you replying, in this
thread, to something he wrote in another? As it stands, his comment
suggests that the WMF can and perhaps should change its name to something
"suitable for the parent of all projects, not just Wikipedia. " The point
being, as I read it, that other solutions to that problem may be available
and the survey neglects to touch on them at all.

Nothing in that sounds like an en.wp-centric view that one project should
be the flagship for all projects and that should be reflected in the brand.
Exactly the opposite.

This is the issue with imputing motives to individuals who haven't stated
them; you may be wrong, and if you are wrong, you may offend your target or
others.
___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread
Agreed.

Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us
working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago,
it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate
for public education and open knowledge.

These personal comments are misleading and hostile.

Fae

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 10:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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, 
> 
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Samuel Klein
Thanks WSC; elegantly put.

On survey process: seconding what others have said,
if you have gotten ~1000 of a desired 4000 responses, and haven't asked two
questions that you realize are essential, yes it is absolutely worth
running a new survey w the new options.

You can even identify cross-survey-iteration correlation : after drafting
an updated survey (and a banner for it) you could randomly offer 20% of
participants the _old_ survey and use correlation there to infer a way to
jointly interpret both versions.

S.

On Mon., Jun. 29, 2020, 4:35 a.m. Ariel Glenn WMF, 
wrote:

>
> I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability
> of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the
> table, the options were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey
> purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name
> community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and
> "change but not to a Wikipedia-based term".
>
> It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what
> percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on
> rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be
> made public.
>
> If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to
> the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no
> change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing
> the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline
> to slip a little, it would be worth it.
>
> Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Naming_FAQ#Were_there_other_naming_convention_proposals_that_did_not_end_up_in_the_survey?_Why_were_they_eliminated
> ?
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Natalia,
> >
> > I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> > survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> > problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to
> be
> > designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> > find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
> >
> > "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I
> am
> > not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> > sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> > people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of
> the
> > WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> > Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a
> relatively
> > harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> > projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have
> been
> > my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> > differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> > sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured
> child,
> > does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name,
> don't
> > change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is
> also a
> > position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > WereSpielChequers
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 1
> > > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <
> > > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Dunning and Kruger have nothing to do with it; I am perfectly able to get
it wrong. What you do is dismissive and you do not make a point. That makes
it a fail by default.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 13:58, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not
> identify a cure.
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
>
> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> > choices
> > > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
> and
> > > you make that plain in what you say.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> > completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please
> stop.
> >
> > [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> > nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> > ___
> > 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>
> ___
> 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>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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>
___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not identify a 
cure.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
what has been expressed?

For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
Wikimedian who I respect.

When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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>
___
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>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
So far it has been an ongoing process. No obvious reason to expect a change.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dan Szymborski
Sent: 28 June 2020 18:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > br

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gnangarra
It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they
think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's
the best known identity.   It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and
run.

There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name, to get to
those aspects and come up with something new is an exercise that no
PR/advertising company wants to take on without substantial outlay and
healthy profit because failure will be remembered long after the last
cheque is cashed.  You only need to look at how the outcome of
Alphabet/Google naming to realise that deeper meanings exist.  Wikipedia is
more than just a brand outside the movement, it's synonymous with it being
a community, with trusted knowledge, and significantly something that
somehow worked when everything the experts assumed about collaboration said
it shouldn't.

Yes we know the board can do whatever they want, call themselves whatever
they want,  the question has always been should they?, even then they
should have known not to.

The Wikimedia Foundation will always be a distant second to Wikipedia even
if they try to take on the name Wikipedia, which is as it should be as
Wikipedia is not about the Board or Foundation both of whom are there to
only support the projects.  It's beholden upon us as community members to
grow the community, to grow the content , and ensure its quality the
Foundation is there to provide the support/foundations we need to do our
part. While the Board is there to ensure that the WMF acts within the
bounds of its scope and complies with its legal requirements as a charity.

WMF and the Board are just the pilot and tug boat whos knowledge is meant
to keep us off the rocks, tug boats dont take on the name of the ship they
have their own identity.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 18:36, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> > choices
> > > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
> and
> > > you make that plain in what you say.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> > completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please
> stop.
> >
> > [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> > nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
what has been expressed?

For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
Wikimedian who I respect.

When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Benjamin Lees
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> you make that plain in what you say.
>

This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.

[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
you make that plain in what you say. The problem with bias is that it has
consequences in how you approach issues. When Wikipedia "consensus" has it
that we do not collaborate with Wikidata, it follows that you will not
consider linking blue and red wiki links to Wikidata items and not to
Wikipedia titles. From a Wikipedia point of view it is perfectly acceptable
but no longer a great choice. From a Wikimedia point of view,
not considering options shows that there is no consideration for our
overall goal; sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

Wikimedia has multiple projects and we will have more impact when we
collaborate. Commons is searchable in any and all languages thanks to
Special:MediaSearch [1], when we expose it on every Wikipedia, it will be
easier to illustrate Wikipedias. Wikidata can rid Wikipedia of much of its
false friends problem and it can ensure that lists are better maintained.
Magnus has shown that this is true even for English Wikipedia and as always
English Wikipedia is only one of the Wikipedias.

When Wikipedia is mentioned, English Wikipedia is implied. It has something
like 50% of our traffic and it does represent less than 50% or our target
audience. I am all for improving the marketing of our projects but the bias
for and the toxicity of English Wikipedia makes me oppose it. In essence,
it is English Wikipedia that has to polish up its act, accept
opposing points of view from others before it becomes reasonable to accept
it as a flagship.
Thanks,
  GerardM



[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=boomkikker

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 23:06, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Dear Natalia,
>
> I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
> designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
>
> "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
> not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
> WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
> harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
> my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
> does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
> change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a whil

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Ariel Glenn WMF
Thank you WereSpielChequers for writing so clearly and concisely what I
have been struggling to put into words for some days.

I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability
of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the
table, the options were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey
purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name
community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and
"change but not to a Wikipedia-based term".

It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what
percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on
rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be
made public.

If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to
the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no
change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing
the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline
to slip a little, it would be worth it.

Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Naming_FAQ#Were_there_other_naming_convention_proposals_that_did_not_end_up_in_the_survey?_Why_were_they_eliminated
?

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Natalia,
>
> I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
> designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
>
> "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
> not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
> WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
> harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
> my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
> does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
> change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread Dan Szymborski
Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > briefing on discussions happening;
> > >
> > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > > posted publicly after the meeting;
> > >
> > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
> not
> > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> > stop,
> > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
> discussion
> > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> > >
> > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> > about
> > > the Brand project.
> > >
> > > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> > renaming
> > > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> > position
> > > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and
> that
> > > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are
> also
> > > some who 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread Dan Szymborski
A survey in which the board's decision cannot possibly be disputed sounds
like a perfect fit rather than an unfit one.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit
> for purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically
> questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the
> possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been
> brought up so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Nataliia Tymkiv
> Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
>
> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread WereSpielChequers
Dear Natalia,

I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.

"No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".


Regards

WereSpielChequers



Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> Message-ID:
> <
> cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who woul

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit for 
purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically 
questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the 
possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been brought up 
so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nataliia Tymkiv
Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Dear all,

I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.

Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting.

Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.

We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
whether to adopt them.

Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:

* Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
briefing on discussions happening;

* July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
posted publicly after the meeting;

* August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.

* August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
the Brand project.

I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
[2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.

Stay safe,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming


*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
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>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
That is a really poorly designed survey unless it has been changed since I last 
saw it. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Zack McCune
Sent: 27 June 2020 02:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Dear all,

We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
communities. We invite your perspectives.

We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a change.

We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
that information into the process.

The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.

   -

   Zack & the Brand Project team

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals


On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
> in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects and
> opinions.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> have
> > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> >
> > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> more
> > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> survey
> > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> to
> > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> on
> > whether to adopt them.
> >
> > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> >
> > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> review
> > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> > briefing on discussions happening;
> >
> > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > posted publicly after the meeting;
> >
> > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> stop,
> > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> >
> > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> about
> > the Brand project.
> >
> > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> renaming
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Zack McCune
Dear all,

We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
communities. We invite your perspectives.

We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a change.

We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
that information into the process.

The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.

   -

   Zack & the Brand Project team

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals


On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
> in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects and
> opinions.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> have
> > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> >
> > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> more
> > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> survey
> > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> to
> > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> on
> > whether to adopt them.
> >
> > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> >
> > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> review
> > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> > briefing on discussions happening;
> >
> > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > posted publicly after the meeting;
> >
> > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> stop,
> > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> >
> > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> about
> > the Brand project.
> >
> > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> renaming
> > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> position
> > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> > some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> > communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
> >
> > Stay safe,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
> >
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Paul J. Weiss
"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to
change the survey now"

This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is
not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and
WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they would immediately stop
the current one, and rewrite a new one, designed with minimal bias. If some
survey asked about ethnicity, and left off "Black/Afican American" as an
option, would you still continue the poorly written survey? As I have said
before, you have staff with survey expertise--use them!

This is yet another sign that those in charge do not truly want to know how
the community feels about the rebranding initiative. Y'all say "Branding
should protect and improve the reputation of the movement". That is
becoming harder and harder to believe. Not stopping a biased survey clearly
damages the reputation of our brand. I wonder if it is time to fork
Wikipedia.

Paul
User:Libcub

At 2020-06-26  04:27 p, you wrote:

Dear all, I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees about the Brand Project. Originally the Board
meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to happen no earlier
than October. The expected outcome from the project were the
recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting. Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a
briefing about the project and talk about the process between June 2018 -
June 2020. The consolidated materials on what the brand project team has
been working on for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these
materials are also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic
conversation is planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the
materials is needed, and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised,
so the Board can have an in-depth discussion about this, before making any
kind of decision. We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have
discussed the possibility of technical changes to the survey with an
additional option like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind
you), but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound
to change the survey now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses
to the survey will not be calculated as support for a change. The survey
was only designed to collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not
as a yes/no vote on whether to adopt them. Thus the timeline on rebranding
for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows: * Early July - special Board meeting
with the Brand project team to review and discuss the process so far, and
for the Board members to receive the briefing on discussions happening; *
July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be posted
publicly after the meeting; * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming
part of the rebranding, not about the process. The Board will make the
decision about whether to stop, pause, or continue the work on this, within
the framework of a discussion on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs,
and potential next steps. * August (after the meeting) - the Board
statement on the next steps about the Brand project. I also want to
acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming [2] that was
posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position of those of
you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that some would
agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also some who
would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and communication after
them will address the concerns raised in the letter. Stay safe, antanana /
Nataliia Tymkiv Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [1]
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming *NOTICE:
You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!* ___ 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
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Tito Dutta
Greetings,
The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects and
opinions.

Thanks
User:Titodutta


On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> 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, 


[Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Nataliia Tymkiv
Dear all,

I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.

Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting.

Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.

We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
whether to adopt them.

Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:

* Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
briefing on discussions happening;

* July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
posted publicly after the meeting;

* August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.

* August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
the Brand project.

I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
[2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.

Stay safe,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming


*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
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,