Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Diane Ranville]

Hi Paulo,

As far as I know, the new discussion will happen *after* the harmonization
sprint, and will be about the new set of recommendations that comes out of
it.

Best,
Diane

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> Could we have a formal RfC already, please?
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be
> > taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in
> > this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to
> push
> > discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and
> > in public.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Diane,
> >>
> >> If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the
> >> "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole
> in
> >> her messages?
> >> I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new
> discussion
> >> with the community takes place.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Paulo
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Ranville  escreveu no dia sexta,
> >> 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
> >>
> >>> Hi Andy,
> >>>
> >>> Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that
> will
> >>> soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
> >>> being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
> >>> If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
> >> suggest
> >>> using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Diane
> >>> (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
> >>>
> >>> <
> >>>
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> 
> >>> Garanti
> >>> sans virus. www.avast.com
> >>> <
> >>>
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> 
> >>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett <
> a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
> 
>  On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett  >
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
>  a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
> >> geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> >>>
>  the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
>  recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> >>>
> >>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
> >>> one
> >>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
>  Wikimedia
> >>> community.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That step is not mentioned at
> >>
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
>  ?
> >
> > But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> > assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> >
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
>  ?
> >
> > In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> >
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> >
> > perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> >
> >   "[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
> >> will
> >then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
> >structures for approval or further consultation."
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
>  --
>  Andy Mabbett
>  @pigsonthewing
>  http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
>  ___
>  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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Could we have a formal RfC already, please? 



> On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be
> taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in
> this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push
> discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and
> in public.
> 
> Todd
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Diane,
>> 
>> If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the
>> "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in
>> her messages?
>> I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion
>> with the community takes place.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Paulo
>> 
>> 
>> Diane Ranville  escreveu no dia sexta,
>> 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
>> 
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> 
>>> Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
>>> soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
>>> being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
>>> If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
>> suggest
>>> using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Diane
>>> (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
>>> 
>>> <
>>> 
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
 
>>> Garanti
>>> sans virus. www.avast.com
>>> <
>>> 
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
 
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
 
 On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett 
 wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
 wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
>> geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
>>> 
 the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
 recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
>>> 
>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
>>> one
>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
 Wikimedia
>>> community.
>>> 
>> 
>> That step is not mentioned at
>> 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
 ?
> 
> But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
 ?
> 
> In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> 
> perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> 
>   "[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
>> will
>then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
>structures for approval or further consultation."
> 
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 
 
 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 ___
 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 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be
taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in
this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push
discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and
in public.

Todd

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Diane,
>
> If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the
> "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in
> her messages?
> I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion
> with the community takes place.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Diane Ranville  escreveu no dia sexta,
> 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
> > soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
> > being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
> > If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
> suggest
> > using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > Best,
> > Diane
> > (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
> >
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > >
> > Garanti
> > sans virus. www.avast.com
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
> > >
> > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
> > > a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
> geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > > > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
> > one
> > > > > > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  That step is not mentioned at
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> > > > assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> > > >
> > > > perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> > > >
> > > >"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
> will
> > > > then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
> > > > structures for approval or further consultation."
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andy Mabbett
> > > > @pigsonthewing
> > > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Diane,

If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the
"harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in
her messages?
I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion
with the community takes place.

Best,
Paulo


Diane Ranville  escreveu no dia sexta,
13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:

> Hi Andy,
>
> Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
> soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
> being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
> If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I suggest
> using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org
>
> Best,
> Diane
> (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >
> Garanti
> sans virus. www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
> > a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
> one
> > > > > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
> > Wikimedia
> > > > > community.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >  That step is not mentioned at
> > > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
> > ?
> > >
> > > But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> > > assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
> > ?
> > >
> > > In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> > >
> > > perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> > >
> > >"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will
> > > then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
> > > structures for approval or further consultation."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:19, Diane Ranville
 wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 

> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation

> > > perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:

> > The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?

> Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
> soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
> being updated (I think they are not meant to be).

Thank you, but in the email to which you replied, I was referring not
to a WG recommendation, but to the FAQ (URL above), which is clearly
at odds with the process as stated in Nicole's email.

I shall look forward to reviewing the revised recommendations.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Diane Ranville]

Hi Andy,

Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I suggest
using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org

Best,
Diane
(community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)


Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
> a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> > > > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
> Wikimedia
> > > > community.
> > > >
> > >
> > >  That step is not mentioned at
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
> ?
> >
> > But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> > assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
> ?
> >
> > In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> >
> > perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> >
> >"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will
> > then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
> > structures for approval or further consultation."
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> > >
> > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> > >
> > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> > > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
> > > community.
> > >
> >
> >  That step is not mentioned at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place?
>
> But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation?
>
> In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
>
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
>
> perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
>
>"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
> structures for approval or further consultation."
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

It's now over a month since the appended exchange, when I suggested
that the answer "All change has negative connotations to some members
of the community", to the question "Could this Recommendation [to, in
part, allow material with NC and ND licences] have a negative
impact/change?" be rewritten to actually reflect the proposal's real
and significant risks.

I've just checked, and it's unchanged.


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber  wrote:
>
> > This is a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
>
> Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
>
> Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
>
> All change has negative connotations to some members of the community
>
> to be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant 
> risks?
>
> As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor
> indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of
> collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly
> argue that it is any of those things.



-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Dariusz

It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you
mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on
a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to
reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since
there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that
intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of
the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a
project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.

Jeff
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Info WorldUniversity]

t; > some
> > > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> > the
> > > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > > recommendations
> > > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> > more
> > > > effective.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
> are
> > > > here!
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the
> Wikimedia
> > > > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many
> distinct
> > > > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there
> is a
> > > > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> > > made.
> > > >
> > > > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense
> then
> > as
> > > > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up
> to
> > a
> > > > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > > > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> > > environment,
> > > > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
> > well
> > > > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> > > taken,
> > > > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> > > >
> > > > So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that
> > great
> > > > as an abstraction.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Benjamin,
> > > > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement
> > suggesting
> > > > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > > > > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
> > are
> > > > > here!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the
> > community
> > > in
> > > > > such a massive way.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a
> group
> > > > > > position at this point in time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <
> > geoffey.ha...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> James
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify
> the
> > > > > Board's
> > > > > >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final
> > Recommendations
> > > > > >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Jeff
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> > > > > >>>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 10:42, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> Well then, why aren't you listening?

You appear to be addressing an individual. Your top-posting does not
make the addressee clear.

> We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
> editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it,

What, like this?

   
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

it was added in June 2014.

> we can get paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork,

How's that going, since June 2014?

> In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
> paid editing, but have WMF do the paying.

> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C

That page says:

  "The solutions we are exploring (tentative recommendations) are:

 "Payment for ‘necessary services’ to ensure equity in who is able to spend
  their time being a Wikimedian. We’re thinking about Boards, and other
  'functionary' roles (Fund committees, etc.) that require special privilege
  access to data/tools, and have a 'term' for their role in which they are
  considered to be on duty (e.g. 2 years), and for which they are personally
  responsible. We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning
  towards not supporting that.  Perhaps this will be decided at a
local level,
  e.g. via the Regional Hubs."

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Payment "in kind" is still a form of payment. Now, if it's just talking
about expense reimbursement, I'm okay with that (so long as such
reimbursement is done uniformly rather than just for certain people), but
as far as I know that's already been done for a long time.

But it's still bothersome that, despite the fact that we have begged the
WMF for years to come up with a solution to the issue of paid editing, not
one of these recommendations addresses that. "Diversity", while certainly a
noble goal, cannot be the only goal. Our strategy should primarily focus on
the issues we have right now, today, and I do not see one single one of
these recommendations addressing paid editing, one of the primary scourges
we currently face, in any way whatsoever, and one that would at least
arguably make it worse.

Todd

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:09 AM Bence Damokos  wrote:

> The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision
> making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid
> editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
>
> I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of
> the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage
> with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or
> indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
>
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> Todd Allen  (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt
> írta:
>
> > Well then, why aren't you listening?
> >
> > We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
> > editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
> > paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
> > allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've
> been
> > completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
> > get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
> > deal with the fallout.
> >
> > In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
> > paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
> > opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
> > paid editing from WMF!
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C
> >
> > Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do
> they
> > know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
> > are trying to override them?
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
> > >>
> > >
> > > My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point
> that
> > a
> > > majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> > > organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
> > the
> > > discussion).
> > >
> > > 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening
> to
> > > group.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dj
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
> --
> -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Ilario valdelli]

Hi Dariusz

in recent years WMF has emphasized the concepts of diversity and equity 
that are excellent and desirable but should not forget that Wikipedia 
today is what it is thanks to a community that for over 18 years has 
supported these projects and that cannot be forgotten from today to 
tomorrow.


Many recommendations forget this point and forget that Wikimedia 
projects stand on their feet thanks to this experienced group.


Participating in wikimedia projects is done on a voluntary basis, there 
are many excellent projects to work with that are out of the wikiverse.


Giving to these volunteers the feeling of not being accepted because 
they are male, western, middle-aged and with a good economic position 
will only speed up this process.


Kind regards

On 24/08/2019 23:40, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of view 
achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and 
disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me including). I think it 
is quite unlikely that recommendations challenging every single part of that intent, in 
the understanding of the majority of our community, will go through.

It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to 
radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.

In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up anyhow.

best,

dj

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dariusz

It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention 
are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral 
point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable 
independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since there are 
recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems 
reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer 
workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so 
dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.

Jeff



--

[http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl 



Ostatnie artykuły:

   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of Quality of 
Information on 
Wikipedias 
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.  2460–2470.
   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits of 
A-Hierarchical 
Organization 
Journal of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between Wikipedia 
and Academia Journal of 
the Association for Information Science and Technology 67:  7.  1773-1776.
   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on 
Wikipedia Feminist 
Review 113:  1.  103-108.
   *   Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Inequalities in 
Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in Apache 
Software Foundation 
Projects,
 PLoS ONE 11:  4.  e0152976.
___
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, 



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Bence Damokos]

There is merit in discussing that recommendation for what it is about
(perhaps in a separate thread or on the Meta talk page), but it was not
about paid editing.


Best regards,
Bence

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, 13:16 Ilario valdelli,  wrote:

> Hi Bence,
>
> I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence:
>
> "We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate"
>
> which can be opened to any interpretation.
>
> I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by
> the community because it associates the diversity to the privileges and
> would justify the paid activities on this basis. Wikimedia projects and
> Wikimedia structure has been based always on volunteering time, as soon
> it will be open to paid activities, the sense of participation will be
> distorted.
>
> Basically, if we would explain to the man of street, why the community
> should continue to contribute on volunteering basis if some activities
> are paid? The reason that there are unprivileged members is weak in my
> opinion.
>
> This is a distortion itself.
>
> On 25/08/2019 12:09, Bence Damokos wrote:
> > The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision
> > making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about
> ‘paid
> > editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
> >
> > I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of
> > the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and
> engage
> > with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or
> > indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > Todd Allen  (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44)
> ezt
> > írta:
> >
> >> Well then, why aren't you listening?
> >>
> >> We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
> >> editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
> >> paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
> >> allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've
> been
> >> completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so
> we
> >> get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get
> to
> >> deal with the fallout.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
> >> paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
> >> opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly
> no
> >> paid editing from WMF!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C
> >>
> >> Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do
> they
> >> know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
> >> are trying to override them?
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
> 
> >>> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point
> that
> >> a
> >>> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> >>> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
> >> the
> >>> discussion).
> >>>
> >>> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening
> to
> >>> group.
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>>
> >>> dj
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Wikipedia: Ilario
> Skype: valdelli
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Ilario valdelli]

You are right and this is what it should be.

Anyways we must consider that the selection of the working groups 
followed more the parameters to select the "representatives" of 
Wikimedia than the "representatives" of Wikipedia's communities.


Basically the experience in Wikimedia projects has been quite neglected.

I have a personal feeling that the diversity has been stressed a lot but 
neglecting some parameters which are valued by the community and for 
this reason the community doesn't feel represented by these members of 
the working groups.


The comunity is perceiving these recommendations more likely a vision 
lowered from above.


On 24/08/2019 11:44, Aron Manning wrote:

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:


It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.


Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some
combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into
two opposing camps.
The recommendations are about the path we choose for the future, and the
conversations are your chance to contribute to that vision.

Aron
___
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, 



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Ilario valdelli]

Hi Bence,

I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence:

"We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate"

which can be opened to any interpretation.

I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by 
the community because it associates the diversity to the privileges and 
would justify the paid activities on this basis. Wikimedia projects and 
Wikimedia structure has been based always on volunteering time, as soon 
it will be open to paid activities, the sense of participation will be 
distorted.


Basically, if we would explain to the man of street, why the community 
should continue to contribute on volunteering basis if some activities 
are paid? The reason that there are unprivileged members is weak in my 
opinion.


This is a distortion itself.

On 25/08/2019 12:09, Bence Damokos wrote:

The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision
making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid
editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.

I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of
the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage
with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or
indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).


Best regards,
Bence

Todd Allen  (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt
írta:


Well then, why aren't you listening?

We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
deal with the fallout.

In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
paid editing from WMF!


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C

Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
are trying to override them?

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:



On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:


Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?


My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that

a

majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in

the

discussion).

5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
group.

best,

dj


___
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,



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Bence Damokos]

The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision
making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid
editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.

I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of
the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage
with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or
indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).


Best regards,
Bence

Todd Allen  (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt
írta:

> Well then, why aren't you listening?
>
> We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
> editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
> paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
> allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been
> completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
> get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
> deal with the fallout.
>
> In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
> paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
> opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
> paid editing from WMF!
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C
>
> Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they
> know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
> are trying to override them?
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
> >>
> >
> > My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that
> a
> > majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> > organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
> the
> > discussion).
> >
> > 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> > group.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dj
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 

-- 
-- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Well then, why aren't you listening?

We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
deal with the fallout.

In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
paid editing from WMF!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C

Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
are trying to override them?

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Todd,
We can recover from the loss of those admins eventually, but that recovery may 
be delayed by further blows, and somewhere along the line is the last straw. 
This may be welcomed by some groups, not so much by others. Otherwise I agree 
with your point, though do not necessarily agree with the way you express it. 
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Todd Allen
Sent: 25 August 2019 00:22
To: dar...@alk.edu.pl; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being
ignored?

When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have
been learned with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've
learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local
community again.

Has that lesson, at least, been learned?

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Good point Yaroslav, I agree with you entirely. That is how we who are doing 
the free work see it. ( I feel reasonably confident that this is a widespread 
if not universal opinion of neutral editors) The WMF may benefit from our 
input, but that is not the main point at all. We remain entirely free to vote 
with our feet. It is up to the board to assess whether net gain or net loss is 
likely to ensue for each proposal. If they choose options which have a high 
risk of net loss they fail in their duty. History will judge.
A lot of misconception going on.
Cheers, P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav Blanter
Sent: 24 August 2019 23:15
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually not working for WMF
at all. This is a completely false premise for any discussion.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
> those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
> WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
> the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
> terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
> these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
> large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
> there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
> sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
> Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
> course for them and not for us to decide.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> > accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> > the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> > of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> > is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> > community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
> electorate
> > has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> > not beholden to you nor me.
> >
> > "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
> our
> > projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> > in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> > references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> > when.
> >
> > Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
> opinion
> > nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
> needs
> > an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
> best
> > to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> > consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
> of
> > how we could improve upon them.
> > Thanks
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
> it
> > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
> some
> > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> the
> > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > recommendations
> > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> more
> > > effective.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by som

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

This appears to be a reasonable and balanced comment by Dariusz. The 
recommendations in their current state were opened for discussion and are being 
discussed. Where commentators have seen problematic issues they have pointed 
them out. The working groups have in some cases entirely failed to engage with 
the commentators, which is frustrating to those who are putting in their 
attention and applying their minds to what they see as problems. Some tend to 
become more adversarial and strident under these circumstances, other just give 
up and stop wasting their time. In effect a filter is applied which keeps the 
most motivated and single minded and possibly some trolls, and deters the more 
moderate from participation. My take is that this is not the intention, because 
if it is then the movement is doomed to be taken over by extremists and people 
with hidden political agendas. 
Opinions will differ. This is mine
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dariusz Jemielniak
Sent: 24 August 2019 23:07
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!



On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
course for them and not for us to decide.

just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand 
active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed 
of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast 
majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I 
don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current 
volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.

However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions  (I'd 
call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 
thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the 
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made.
We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and 
cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.

I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working 
groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges 
we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic 
conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there 
will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the 
recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't 
think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed 
people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm 
quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, 
even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as 
more general directives or ideas for later future.

best,

dj "pundit"

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Research on the acquisition of new volunteers shows that most new people
drop out because of perceived hostility. This excercise of formulating a
strategy for 2030 aims to address this among other objectives. It follows
that when new volunteers that stick is an important objective, the status
quo cannot be maintained. When people threaten to leave because the status
quo, their power base is threatened, they are welcome to take a leave of
absence and as Jan-Bart said in them days we hope they will reconsider.

Mind you, I am not a fan-boy of the new strategy. I was in Stockholm and I
made several points where I think the strategy fails.

The problem that I have with "advocates for the community" is that like
lawyers they do not necessarily self include and certainly take no
responsiblity. Their point would be more clear when they say "I will leave
our community because... ". Our community will be better off when some bad
apples but "pillars of the community" leave. Our community would be better
off when we argue in stead of state opinions. Let's be on point and to the
point.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:39, Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
> those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
> WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
> the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
> terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
> these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
> large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
> there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
> sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
> Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
> course for them and not for us to decide.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> > accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> > the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> > of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> > is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> > community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
> electorate
> > has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> > not beholden to you nor me.
> >
> > "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
> our
> > projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> > in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> > references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> > when.
> >
> > Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
> opinion
> > nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
> needs
> > an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
> best
> > to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> > consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
> of
> > how we could improve upon them.
> > Thanks
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
> it
> > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
> some
> > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> the
> > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > recommendations
> > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> more
> > > effective.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you are not answerable for the mails you send, I might agree. I do not
put words in your mouth, you were quite capable of doing that yourself.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:02, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was
> not defined by me,  so why do you not address your question to the person
> who brought it up? (Benjamin)
> Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware
> of my own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my
> opinions offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not
> stated. It is entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have
> never claimed that they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had
> mixed success in its endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating
> with English Wikipedia on some aspects of trust and safety, policy and
> software changes is a thing they have not done well. This is my opinion.
> Yours may differ. I will give your opinion the consideration it deserves
> when it is explained logically, politely, and referring to verifiable
> facts. The farcical state of some elected governments and the
> irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to me, as I live in a
> state where the elected government has continuously failed to deliver on
> their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the way, other
> countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not relieve
> other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being appointed
> to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility to do
> due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to
> govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a
> person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a
> constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and
> appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to
> avoid where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable
> confidence that the board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the
> ability of some of the working groups to come up with workable solutions to
> the various problems of the various projects.
> There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered
> change that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of
> measures which includes poorly considered and poorly articulated
> recommendations that have been put together by people who do not appear to
> wish to communicate with those who will be affected by their
> recommendations. Here are some friendly suggestions: Please read my words
> carefully and try to understand my points, and refrain from assigning
> motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed them for myself, or when
> they are based on the words of other people. Make sure you are addressing
> the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. Do not put words
> into my mouth.
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
> Hoi,
> Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
> has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> not beholden to you nor me.
>
> "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
> projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> when.
>
> Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
> nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
> an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
> to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
> how we could improve upon them.
> Thanks
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkom

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Todd Allen  wrote:

> When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
> functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
> backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
> backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
> regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.
>

There's a different interpretation to those events:

> nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned

Maybe I missed somebody, but the only functionary
, who resigned was
BU Rob13, others were admins and bureaucrats, not functionaries.
It's worth noting, that Rob did not resign because of the WMF's office
action, but the opposite: the community's response to it.
The 22 admins who resigned was ca. 5.4% of the reasonably active admins
("411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more in the year").

> Many have returned

Read: Some of those resignations were for the effect. In a superficial
check I only found a few, who have actually returned.

> WMF backed off
>
Did it? Fram is still banned, temporary office actions policy consultation
is in preparation. I would agree that the WMF is more open to conversation
now, which is good.

> We lost many of our best to that

That can't be claimed objectively. There was an attempt to measure the
activity of the resigned admins: a statistics about number of admin actions
.
It's subjective, how many actions in a year should count as being active.
"As a more reasonable bar, there are 411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more
in the year".  22/411 = 5.4% of the "active" admins resigned, those who
"were responsible for 19423 admin actions or 2.4% of the total". Based on
this dataset, the resigned 5.4% of admins made 2.4% of the admin actions in
one year. Less than half of the average. This is not representative of the
"quality" of an admin, but shows that their resignation was not a major
disruption, contrary to how it is dramatized.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
> something like that again".


"Do better than that" would be the solution oriented lesson to be learned.
By better I mean to do a cooperative process.
I wonder if that "community", whose opinion you represent, have learned
from these recommendations, that there are long-running issues to be
solved.
It's not only the Foundations' lacking cooperation with the communities,
that's under scrutiny here, but also the communities' failure to resolve
fundamental issues.
There would be no need for intervention, if the communities were able to do
this on their own.


> What WMF should've learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted
> interference with a local
> community again.
>

Starting these conversations was a major step forward from the "hamfisted
interference" of the framban.
Can the community show good faith in response, and cooperatively
participate? Many of us did.

Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen  wrote:

> And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of
> thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than
> a dozen people?
>

Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs

with 8-14, members each, say ca. 100 WG members to sum.
There are ca. 40 "activists" revolting

against
one or more recommendations. Only a few of them made actual, constructive
contributions to the discussions.
This group is hardly representative of the presumed few thousands
interested in the future of the movement.

That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
> vote counts for a hundred of yours...".
>
> That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected
> by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor
> counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.
>

It sounds like you are describing WP:Vote
.
On enwiki we do WP:Consensus
,
where the arguments count, not directly the number of contributors.
Also, it's questionable, whether the purely negative comments are
good-faith contributions, or disruptions, that make it more difficult to
focus on finding a solution on common grounds.

On the other hand, Wikimania is over, and the WGs' involvement in the
discussions hasn't increased. I hinted on a very optimistic one week
turnaround for the WGs, that didn't happen. I expected this would be a
likely possibility, in which case it's doubtful that the WGs will be able
to produce a recommendation after 15 Sept, that could be accepted as final,
or some will lack important details, or carry the unresolved fundamental
issues. Even if it happens so, that's also a workable process, or
alternatively the Foundation can modify the timeline, when the community
response makes it clear, there's need for more iterations.

Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being
ignored?

When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have
been learned with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've
learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local
community again.

Has that lesson, at least, been learned?

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen 
mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?

My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a 
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, 
structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the discussion).

5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.

best,

dj
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?

" However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions
(I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between
5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made."

And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of
thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than
a dozen people?

That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
vote counts for a hundred of yours...".

That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected
by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor
counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.

Regards,

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 3:40 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point
> of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable
> independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many
> of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations
> challenging every single part of that intent, in the understanding of the
> majority of our community, will go through.
>
> It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to
> radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.
>
> In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up
> anyhow.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke  > wrote:
> Dariusz
>
> It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you
> mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on
> a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to
> reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since
> there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that
> intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of
> the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a
> project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> 
> [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
>   prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl 
>
>
>
> Ostatnie artykuły:
>
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of
> Quality of Information on Wikipedias<
> http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf>
> Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.
> 2460–2470.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits
> of A-Hierarchical Organization<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf> Journal
> of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
> Wikipedia and Academia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf> Journal of the
> Association for Information Science and Technology 67:  7.  1773-1776.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf> Feminist
> Review 113:  1.  103-108.
>   *   Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)
> Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s
> Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projects<
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF>,
> PLoS ONE 11:  4.  e0152976.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of 
view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent 
sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me 
including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations challenging every 
single part of that intent, in the understanding of the majority of our 
community, will go through.

It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to 
radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.

In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up anyhow.

best,

dj

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dariusz

It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention 
are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral 
point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable 
independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since there are 
recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems 
reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer 
workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so 
dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.

Jeff



--

[http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl 



Ostatnie artykuły:

  *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of 
Quality of Information on 
Wikipedias 
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.  
2460–2470.
  *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits of 
A-Hierarchical 
Organization 
Journal of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
  *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between 
Wikipedia and Academia 
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67:  7.  
1773-1776.
  *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on 
Wikipedia Feminist 
Review 113:  1.  103-108.
  *   Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Inequalities 
in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in 
Apache Software Foundation 
Projects,
 PLoS ONE 11:  4.  e0152976.
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

" Only some of the board members are elected by the community." - and the
others are appointed by those who are elected by the community.
OK, it's not entirely direct democracy, but still democracy.

Paulo


Gerard Meijssen  escreveu no dia sábado,
24/08/2019 à(s) 19:10:

> Hoi,
> Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
> has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> not beholden to you nor me.
>
> "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
> projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> when.
>
> Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
> nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
> an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
> to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
> how we could improve upon them.
> Thanks
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> > clarification would be welcome.
> > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> recommendations
> > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> > effective.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > here!
> >
> > Hoi,
> > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> made.
> >
> > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
> > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
> > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> environment,
> > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
> > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> taken,
> > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> >
> > So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
> > as an abstraction.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Benjamin,
> > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community
> in
> > > such a massive way.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > > position at this point in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Yaroslav Blanter]

We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually not working for WMF
at all. This is a completely false premise for any discussion.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
> those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
> WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
> the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
> terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
> these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
> large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
> there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
> sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
> Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
> course for them and not for us to decide.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> > accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> > the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> > of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> > is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> > community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
> electorate
> > has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> > not beholden to you nor me.
> >
> > "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
> our
> > projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> > in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> > references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> > when.
> >
> > Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
> opinion
> > nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
> needs
> > an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
> best
> > to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> > consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
> of
> > how we could improve upon them.
> > Thanks
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
> it
> > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
> some
> > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> the
> > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > recommendations
> > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> more
> > > effective.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> > made.
> > >
> > > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then
> as
> > > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to
> a
> > > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> > environment,
> > > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
> well
> > > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> > taken,
> > > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> > >
> > > So what community and why should 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
course for them and not for us to decide.

just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand 
active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed 
of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast 
majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I 
don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current 
volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.

However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions  (I'd 
call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 
thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the 
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made.
We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and 
cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.

I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working 
groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges 
we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic 
conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there 
will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the 
recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't 
think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed 
people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm 
quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, 
even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as 
more general directives or ideas for later future.

best,

dj "pundit"

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Nicole,

You say that the harmonisation sprint will take place in Tunis.  Why was it
decided to hold the sprint in a country in which ihomosexuality is
illegal,  as are sexual relations outside marriage.  Is this going to be a
safe space for such community members?

Jeff

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:58 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our
> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
>
> DRAFTS
> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are
> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working
> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a
> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple
> progress levels.
>
> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to
> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a
> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning
> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to
> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into
> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of
> rushing to a quick fix.
>
> INTEGRATION
> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via
> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of
> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> harmonization across working groups.
>
> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it
> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already
> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be  considered
> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will
> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
>
> TIMELINE
> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read
> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the
> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working
> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for
> harmonization.
>
> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3
> representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more
> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by
> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also
> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa
> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to
> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and
> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and
> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the
> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the
> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the
> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate
> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for
> implementation.
>
> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to
> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal
> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for
> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public
> consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and
> owned across the movement.
>
> WORKING GROUPS
> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that
> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by
> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a
> steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group
> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different
> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups,
> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Gerard

A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
course for them and not for us to decide.

Jeff

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
> has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> not beholden to you nor me.
>
> "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
> projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> when.
>
> Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
> nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
> an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
> to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
> how we could improve upon them.
> Thanks
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> > clarification would be welcome.
> > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> recommendations
> > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> > effective.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > here!
> >
> > Hoi,
> > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> made.
> >
> > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
> > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
> > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> environment,
> > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
> > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> taken,
> > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> >
> > So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
> > as an abstraction.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Benjamin,
> > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, 
My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was not 
defined by me,  so why do you not address your question to the person who 
brought it up? (Benjamin)
Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware of my 
own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my opinions 
offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not stated. It is 
entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have never claimed that 
they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had mixed success in its 
endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating with English Wikipedia on 
some aspects of trust and safety, policy and software changes is a thing they 
have not done well. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. I will give your 
opinion the consideration it deserves when it is explained logically, politely, 
and referring to verifiable facts. The farcical state of some elected 
governments and the irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to 
me, as I live in a state where the elected government has continuously failed 
to deliver on their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the 
way, other countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not 
relieve other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being 
appointed to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility 
to do due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to 
govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a 
person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a 
constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and 
appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to avoid 
where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable confidence that the 
board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the ability of some of the 
working groups to come up with workable solutions to the various problems of 
the various projects.
There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered change 
that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of measures which 
includes poorly considered and poorly articulated recommendations that have 
been put together by people who do not appear to wish to communicate with those 
who will be affected by their recommendations. Here are some friendly 
suggestions: Please read my words carefully and try to understand my points, 
and refrain from assigning motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed 
them for myself, or when they are based on the words of other people. Make sure 
you are addressing the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. 
Do not put words into my mouth.
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hoi,
Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
not beholden to you nor me.

"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
when.

Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
how we could improve upon them.
Thanks
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> clarification would be welcome.
> English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations
> of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> effective.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
not beholden to you nor me.

"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
when.

Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
how we could improve upon them.
Thanks
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> clarification would be welcome.
> English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations
> of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> effective.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
> Hoi,
> May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.
>
> In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
> it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
> point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
> it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
> fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
> fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
>
> So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
> as an abstraction.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Benjamin,
> > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > here!
> >
> >
> >
> > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> > such a massive way.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > position at this point in time.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> > Board's
> > >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> > >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> > >>>
> > >>> James
> > >>>
> > >>> On 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, 
It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is 
Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some 
clarification would be welcome. 
English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF 
has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations of the 
Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hoi,
May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.

In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.

So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
as an abstraction.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Benjamin,
> Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Paulo,
> >>>>
> >>>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
> >>>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
> >>>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
> >>>> the opinion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >>>> over
> >>>> a much less dramatic change.
> >>>>
> >>>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> >>>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
> >>>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
> >>>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
> >>>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
> >>>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
> >>>> return when the time is right.
> >>>>
> >>>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> >>>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If I'v

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.

In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.

So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
as an abstraction.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Benjamin,
> Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Paulo,
> >>>>
> >>>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
> >>>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
> >>>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
> >>>> the opinion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >>>> over
> >>>> a much less dramatic change.
> >>>>
> >>>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> >>>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
> >>>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
> >>>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
> >>>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
> >>>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
> >>>> return when the time is right.
> >>>>
> >>>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> >>>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> >>>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> >>> 8and
> >>>>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> >>> December.
> >>>>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> >> only
> >>> be
> >>>>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> >>>>> process of implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> >>>> Wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Benjamin,
Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the 
board might overrule the community in this matter?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Benjamin Ikuta
Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!



It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such 
a massive way. 



On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> position at this point in time.
> 
> J
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> 
>> James
>> 
>> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
>> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
>> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Paulo,
>>>> 
>>>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
>>>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
>> just
>>>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
>>> expressed
>>>> the opinion
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>>>> over
>>>> a much less dramatic change.
>>>> 
>>>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>>>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
>> this
>>>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
>> take a
>>>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
>> to
>>>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>>> when
>>>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
>>>> return when the time is right.
>>>> 
>>>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>>>> 
>>>> Jeff
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>>>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
>>>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
>>> 8and
>>>>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
>>> December.
>>>>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
>> only
>>> be
>>>>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
>>>>> process of implementation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>>>> Wikimedia
>>>>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
>>> the
>>>>> way till implementation phase.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paulo
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
>>>>> 22/08/2019
>>>>> à(s) 11:58:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
>>> much
>>>>>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
>> building
>>>> our
>>>>>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
>> clarifications.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DRAFTS
>>>>>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
>> shared
>>>> are
>>>>>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>>>> working
>>>>>> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
>>> Some
>>>>>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
>>> development,
>>>>>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
>>> few
>>>>>> weeks. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

" I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the
core group" - At the meta pages everybody can see the community is engaging
very actively, it's WG and core group engagement there which is very low or
null. And we are already only some 3 weeks before the window for community
engagement closes. How can this look good and inspiring?

I also don't understand why people keep saying that "many of the
recommendations are fine" - Those obviously are not the problem. The
problem is that we, as the wider community, are now seeing the final draft
for some quite egregiously controversial recommendations, and there is not
any indication that they will be removed or adapted in a consensus with the
community. Some crucial WGs such as Roles & Responsibilities seem to have
reduced the output to 3 complex theoretical models that we are supposed to
evaluate in some few days. This can't be right.

Paulo

James Heilman  escreveu no dia sábado, 24/08/2019 à(s)
09:51:

> @ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
> community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
> community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
> working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
> requires more discussion and some adjustments.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> > such a massive way.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > position at this point in time.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> > Board's
> > >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> > >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> > >>>
> > >>> James
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Paulo,
> > 
> >  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> > community
> >  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> > >> just
> >  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> > >>> expressed
> >  the opinion
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >  over
> >  a much less dramatic change.
> > 
> > > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> >  acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> > >> this
> >  next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> > >> take a
> >  wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
> have
> > >> to
> >  let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
> step
> > >>> when
> >  needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> > will
> >  return when the time is right.
> > 
> >  I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> > 
> >  Jeff
> > 
> >  On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> >  paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> > >>> 8and
> > > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> > >>> December.
> > > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> > >> only
> > >>> be
> > > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
> the
> > > process of implementation.
> > >
> > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> >  Wikimedia
> > > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
> all
> > >>> the
> > > way till implementation phase.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > > 22/08/2019
> > > à(s) 11:58:
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> > >>> much
> > >> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> > >> building
> >  our
> > >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
> > >> clarifications.
> > >>
> > >> DRAFTS
> > >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> > >> shared
> >  are
> > >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> >  working
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

> It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.
>

Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some
combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into
two opposing camps.
The recommendations are about the path we choose for the future, and the
conversations are your chance to contribute to that vision.

Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Sorry, by "you" I meant the board. 

It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community. 



> On Aug 24, 2019, at 1:29 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> 
> @ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
> community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
> community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
> working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
> requires more discussion and some adjustments.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
>> such a massive way.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
>>> position at this point in time.
>>> 
>>> J
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 James
 
 Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
>> Board's
 position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
 implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
 
 Jeff
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
>> wrote:
 
> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> 
>> Paulo,
>> 
>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
>> community
>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
 just
>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> expressed
>> the opinion
>> 
>> 
> 
 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>> over
>> a much less dramatic change.
>> 
>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
 this
>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
 take a
>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
 to
>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> when
>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
>> will
>> return when the time is right.
>> 
>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> 8and
>>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> December.
>>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
 only
> be
>>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
>>> process of implementation.
>>> 
>>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>> Wikimedia
>>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> the
>>> way till implementation phase.
>>> 
>>> Paulo
>>> 
>>> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
>>> 22/08/2019
>>> à(s) 11:58:
>>> 
 Dear all,
 
 Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> much
 attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
 building
>> our
 future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
 clarifications.
 
 DRAFTS
 As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
 shared
>> are
 recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>> working
 documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> Some
 answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> development,
 others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> few
 weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
>> everyone a
 full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
>> multiple
 progress levels.
 
 I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
 community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
>> recommendation
>>> to
 change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
>> through
>>> a
 quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
>>> reasoning
 behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
>> ways
>>> to
 mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
 look

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[James Heilman]

@ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
requires more discussion and some adjustments.

James

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Paulo,
> 
>  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
>  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
>  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
>  the opinion
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>  over
>  a much less dramatic change.
> 
> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>  acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
>  next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
>  wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
>  let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
>  needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
>  return when the time is right.
> 
>  I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> 
>  Jeff
> 
>  On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>  paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> >>> 8and
> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> >>> December.
> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> >> only
> >>> be
> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > process of implementation.
> >
> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>  Wikimedia
> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> >>> the
> > way till implementation phase.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 22/08/2019
> > à(s) 11:58:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> >>> much
> >> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> >> building
>  our
> >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
> >> clarifications.
> >>
> >> DRAFTS
> >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> >> shared
>  are
> >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>  working
> >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> >>> Some
> >> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> >>> development,
> >> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> >>> few
> >> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
>  everyone a
> >> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
>  multiple
> >> progress levels.
> >>
> >> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> >> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
>  recommendation
> > to
> >> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
>  through
> > a
> >> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> > reasoning
> >> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
>  ways
> > to
> >> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
> >> look
>  into
> >> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
> >> the
> >> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
> >>> instead
>  of
> >> rushing to a quick fix.
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such 
a massive way. 



On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> position at this point in time.
> 
> J
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> 
>> James
>> 
>> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
>> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
>> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Paulo,
 
 You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
 does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
>> just
 five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
>>> expressed
 the opinion
 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
 over
 a much less dramatic change.
 
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
 acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
>> this
 next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
>> take a
 wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
>> to
 let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>>> when
 needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
 return when the time is right.
 
 I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
 
 Jeff
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
 paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
>>> 8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
>>> December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
>> only
>>> be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> process of implementation.
> 
> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
 Wikimedia
> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
>>> the
> way till implementation phase.
> 
> Paulo
> 
> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> 22/08/2019
> à(s) 11:58:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
>>> much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
>> building
 our
>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
>> clarifications.
>> 
>> DRAFTS
>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
>> shared
 are
>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
 working
>> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
>>> Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
>>> development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
>>> few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
 everyone a
>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
 multiple
>> progress levels.
>> 
>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
 recommendation
> to
>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
 through
> a
>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> reasoning
>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
 ways
> to
>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
>> look
 into
>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
>> the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
>>> instead
 of
>> rushing to a quick fix.
>> 
>> INTEGRATION
>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
>>> and
> via
>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
 iteration
> of
>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
>> for
>> harmonization across working groups.
>> 
>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
>> of
 it
>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
>> or
>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
 already
>> addressing implementation. Structural input will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[James Heilman]

The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
position at this point in time.

J

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> James
>
> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>
> Jeff
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Paulo,
> > >
> > > You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
> > > does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> just
> > > five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> > expressed
> > > the opinion
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> > > over
> > > a much less dramatic change.
> > >
> > > > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> > > acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> this
> > > next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> take a
> > > wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> to
> > > let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> > when
> > > needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
> > > return when the time is right.
> > >
> > > I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > > > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> > 8and
> > > > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> > December.
> > > > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> only
> > be
> > > > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > > > process of implementation.
> > > >
> > > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> > the
> > > > way till implementation phase.
> > > >
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > > > 22/08/2019
> > > > à(s) 11:58:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> > much
> > > > > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> building
> > > our
> > > > > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
> clarifications.
> > > > >
> > > > > DRAFTS
> > > > > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> shared
> > > are
> > > > > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> > > working
> > > > > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> > Some
> > > > > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> > development,
> > > > > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> > few
> > > > > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
> > > everyone a
> > > > > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
> > > multiple
> > > > > progress levels.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> > > > > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
> > > recommendation
> > > > to
> > > > > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
> > > through
> > > > a
> > > > > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> > > > reasoning
> > > > > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
> > > ways
> > > > to
> > > > > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
> look
> > > into
> > > > > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
> the
> > > > > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
> > instead
> > > of
> > > > > rushing to a quick fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > INTEGRATION
> > > > > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
> > and
> > > > via
> > > > > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
> > > iteration
> > > > of
> > > > > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
> for
> > > > > harmonization across working groups.
> > > > >
> > > > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
> of
> > > it
> > > > > targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
> or
> > > > > values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
> > > already
> > > > > addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

James

Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?

Jeff

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:

> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
>
> > Paulo,
> >
> > You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
> > does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that just
> > five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> expressed
> > the opinion
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> > over
> > a much less dramatic change.
> >
> > > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> > acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this
> > next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a
> > wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to
> > let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> when
> > needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
> > return when the time is right.
> >
> > I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> 8and
> > > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> December.
> > > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only
> be
> > > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > > process of implementation.
> > >
> > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> > Wikimedia
> > > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> the
> > > way till implementation phase.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > > 22/08/2019
> > > à(s) 11:58:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> much
> > > > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
> > our
> > > > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
> > > >
> > > > DRAFTS
> > > > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
> > are
> > > > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> > working
> > > > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> Some
> > > > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> development,
> > > > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> few
> > > > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
> > everyone a
> > > > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
> > multiple
> > > > progress levels.
> > > >
> > > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> > > > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
> > recommendation
> > > to
> > > > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
> > through
> > > a
> > > > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> > > reasoning
> > > > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
> > ways
> > > to
> > > > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
> > into
> > > > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> > > > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
> instead
> > of
> > > > rushing to a quick fix.
> > > >
> > > > INTEGRATION
> > > > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
> and
> > > via
> > > > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
> > iteration
> > > of
> > > > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> > > > harmonization across working groups.
> > > >
> > > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
> > it
> > > > targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> > > > values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
> > already
> > > > addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
> > > considered
> > > > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
> > will
> > > > be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
> > > >
> > > > TIMELINE
> > > > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> > > > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
> > > read
> > > > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hello James,

If we can do that together, it is not evident from the timeline sent by
Nicole. How can we " collaborate with each other", "the wider community
engage with the proposals that have been made", and we together "develop a
final document that the majority of us in all parts of the movement can
support" if after 15 September or so we will be excluded from the entire
process that will led to the final recommendations?

All we can do is to comment on this very preliminary draft, kind of
shouting in the dark in the hopes that someone would hear, with very little
dialogue with the people that will be defining them, if at all.

Paulo

James Heilman  escreveu no dia sexta, 23/08/2019 à(s)
12:09:

> To clarify on this, yes we need to make changes as a movement, but we need
> to do so in collaboration with each other. My hope is that the wider
> community will engage with the proposals that have been made. And that we
> can develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the
> movement can support.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:04 AM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Paulo,
> >>
> >> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
> >> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that just
> >> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> expressed
> >> the opinion
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >> over
> >> a much less dramatic change.
> >>
> >> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> >> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this
> >> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take
> a
> >> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> to
> >> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >> when
> >> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
> >> return when the time is right.
> >>
> >> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> >> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> >> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> 8and
> >> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> December.
> >> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only
> >> be
> >> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> >> > process of implementation.
> >> >
> >> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> >> Wikimedia
> >> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> the
> >> > way till implementation phase.
> >> >
> >> > Paulo
> >> >
> >> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> >> > 22/08/2019
> >> > à(s) 11:58:
> >> >
> >> > > Dear all,
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> >> much
> >> > > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> building
> >> our
> >> > > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
> >> > >
> >> > > DRAFTS
> >> > > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> shared
> >> are
> >> > > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> >> working
> >> > > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> Some
> >> > > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> >> development,
> >> > > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> >> few
> >> > > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
> >> everyone a
> >> > > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
> >> multiple
> >> > > progress levels.
> >> > >
> >> > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> >> > > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
> >> recommendation
> >> > to
> >> > > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
> >> through
> >> > a
> >> > > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> >> > reasoning
> >> > > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
> >> ways
> >> > to
> >> > > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
> >> into
> >> > > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> >> > > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
> >> instead of
> >> > > rushing to a quick fix.
> >> > >
> >> > > INTEGRATION
> >> > > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
> >> and
> >> > via
> >> > > different movement channels and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[James Heilman]

To clarify on this, yes we need to make changes as a movement, but we need
to do so in collaboration with each other. My hope is that the wider
community will engage with the proposals that have been made. And that we
can develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the
movement can support.

James

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:04 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
>
>> Paulo,
>>
>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that just
>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed
>> the opinion
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>> over
>> a much less dramatic change.
>>
>> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this
>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a
>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to
>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>> when
>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
>> return when the time is right.
>>
>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
>> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and
>> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December.
>> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only
>> be
>> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
>> > process of implementation.
>> >
>> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>> Wikimedia
>> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the
>> > way till implementation phase.
>> >
>> > Paulo
>> >
>> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
>> > 22/08/2019
>> > à(s) 11:58:
>> >
>> > > Dear all,
>> > >
>> > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
>> much
>> > > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
>> our
>> > > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
>> > >
>> > > DRAFTS
>> > > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
>> are
>> > > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>> working
>> > > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
>> > > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
>> development,
>> > > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
>> few
>> > > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
>> everyone a
>> > > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
>> multiple
>> > > progress levels.
>> > >
>> > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
>> > > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
>> recommendation
>> > to
>> > > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
>> through
>> > a
>> > > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
>> > reasoning
>> > > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
>> ways
>> > to
>> > > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
>> into
>> > > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
>> > > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
>> instead of
>> > > rushing to a quick fix.
>> > >
>> > > INTEGRATION
>> > > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
>> and
>> > via
>> > > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
>> iteration
>> > of
>> > > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
>> > > harmonization across working groups.
>> > >
>> > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
>> it
>> > > targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
>> > > values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
>> already
>> > > addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
>> > considered
>> > > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
>> will
>> > > be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
>> > >
>> > > TIMELINE
>> > > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
>> > > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
>> > read
>> > > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
>> > > targeted, public 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Except that this time they don't "hope that all of you will be a part of
this next step in our evolution", since Wikimedia community input ceases
around 15 September in what has been constantly defined as a very
preliminary draft, with very low to null engagement from the WGs, and next
time we'll see that, it will be already the finished product under
deployment.

Not good.

Paulo

Jeff Hawke  escreveu no dia sexta, 23/08/2019 à(s)
11:40:

> Paulo,
>
> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that just
> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed
> the opinion
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> over
> a much less dramatic change.
>
> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this
> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a
> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to
> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when
> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
> return when the time is right.
>
> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and
> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December.
> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be
> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > process of implementation.
> >
> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> Wikimedia
> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the
> > way till implementation phase.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 22/08/2019
> > à(s) 11:58:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
> > > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
> our
> > > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
> > >
> > > DRAFTS
> > > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
> are
> > > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> working
> > > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
> > > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
> > > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
> > > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
> everyone a
> > > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
> multiple
> > > progress levels.
> > >
> > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> > > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
> recommendation
> > to
> > > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
> through
> > a
> > > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> > reasoning
> > > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
> ways
> > to
> > > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
> into
> > > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> > > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead
> of
> > > rushing to a quick fix.
> > >
> > > INTEGRATION
> > > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and
> > via
> > > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
> iteration
> > of
> > > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> > > harmonization across working groups.
> > >
> > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
> it
> > > targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> > > values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
> already
> > > addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
> > considered
> > > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
> will
> > > be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
> > >
> > > TIMELINE
> > > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> > > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
> > read
> > > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> > > targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
> > > languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of
> > the
> > > recommendations through mid-September. Working 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[James Heilman]

I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.

James

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Paulo,
>
> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that just
> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed
> the opinion
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> over
> a much less dramatic change.
>
> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this
> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a
> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to
> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when
> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
> return when the time is right.
>
> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and
> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December.
> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be
> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > process of implementation.
> >
> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> Wikimedia
> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the
> > way till implementation phase.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 22/08/2019
> > à(s) 11:58:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
> > > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
> our
> > > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
> > >
> > > DRAFTS
> > > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
> are
> > > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> working
> > > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
> > > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
> > > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
> > > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
> everyone a
> > > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
> multiple
> > > progress levels.
> > >
> > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> > > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
> recommendation
> > to
> > > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
> through
> > a
> > > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> > reasoning
> > > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
> ways
> > to
> > > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
> into
> > > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> > > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead
> of
> > > rushing to a quick fix.
> > >
> > > INTEGRATION
> > > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and
> > via
> > > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
> iteration
> > of
> > > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> > > harmonization across working groups.
> > >
> > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
> it
> > > targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> > > values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
> already
> > > addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
> > considered
> > > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
> will
> > > be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
> > >
> > > TIMELINE
> > > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> > > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
> > read
> > > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> > > targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
> > > languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of
> > the
> > > recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
> working
> > > on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for
> > > harmonization.
> > >
> > > At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring
> 3
> > > representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
> > more
> > > coherent set of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Paulo,

You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
over
a much less dramatic change.

> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
return when the time is right.

I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.

Jeff

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> process of implementation.
>
> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the
> way till implementation phase.
>
> Paulo
>
> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> 22/08/2019
> à(s) 11:58:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
> > attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our
> > future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
> >
> > DRAFTS
> > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are
> > recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working
> > documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
> > answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
> > others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
> > weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a
> > full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple
> > progress levels.
> >
> > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation
> to
> > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through
> a
> > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> reasoning
> > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways
> to
> > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into
> > different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> > Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of
> > rushing to a quick fix.
> >
> > INTEGRATION
> > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and
> via
> > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration
> of
> > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> > harmonization across working groups.
> >
> > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it
> > targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> > values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already
> > addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
> considered
> > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will
> > be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
> >
> > TIMELINE
> > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
> read
> > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> > targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
> > languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of
> the
> > recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working
> > on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for
> > harmonization.
> >
> > At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3
> > representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
> more
> > coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by
> > facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also
> > invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa
> > (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to
> > the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
process of implementation.

It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the
way till implementation phase.

Paulo

Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019
à(s) 11:58:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our
> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
>
> DRAFTS
> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are
> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working
> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a
> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple
> progress levels.
>
> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to
> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a
> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning
> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to
> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into
> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of
> rushing to a quick fix.
>
> INTEGRATION
> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via
> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of
> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> harmonization across working groups.
>
> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it
> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already
> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be  considered
> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will
> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
>
> TIMELINE
> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read
> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the
> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working
> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for
> harmonization.
>
> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3
> representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more
> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by
> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also
> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa
> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to
> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and
> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and
> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the
> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the
> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the
> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate
> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for
> implementation.
>
> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to
> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal
> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for
> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public
> consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and
> owned across the movement.
>
> WORKING GROUPS
> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that
> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by
> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> >
> > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> >
> > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
> > community.
> >
>
>  That step is not mentioned at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place?

But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:

   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation?

In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:

   https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html

perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:

   "[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures for approval or further consultation."

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Nicole Ebber]

Dear all,

Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.

DRAFTS
As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple
progress levels.

I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of
rushing to a quick fix.

INTEGRATION
The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
harmonization across working groups.

The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be  considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.

TIMELINE
We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for
harmonization.

At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by
facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa
(Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the
representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the
recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for
implementation.

Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal
authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public
consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and
owned across the movement.

WORKING GROUPS
We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that
embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a
steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different
regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation
staff and board.

The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft
recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle for
us as a movement to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Yaroslav Blanter]

And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Andy
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> >
> > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
> > community.
> >
>
>  That step is not mentioned at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
> ?
>
> Jeff
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

I think that is very much the point Andy is making. To be reasonably 
representative of the "Movement" the recommendations should be accepted by the 
wider community, otherwise all legitimacy falls away, and it becomes the 
political games of a clique.
Cheers
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jeff Hawke
Sent: 20 August 2019 20:49
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Andy

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
>
> > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
>
> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
> community.
>

 That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place?

Jeff
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Andy

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
>
> > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
>
> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
> community.
>

 That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place?

Jeff
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF

This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
community.

While some of the changes recommended may be in the gift of the WMF to
apply unilaterally, others are not, and there is ample evidence that
attempting to do so would be far from advisable.


--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Fæ]

Many Wikimedians have left detailed and logical feedback on the Meta
talk pages, as per the request for feedback by Nicole Ebber.

No doubt there is no requirement to keep on making this same feedback
in other places, especially where not part of the planned feedback
process, or where the rationale includes presuming a commonly
understood "current governance model" which is not, apparently,
defined. Neither is it realistic to expect volunteers like Wikipedians
to want to research and critique governance models such as "Buurtzorg"
which is designed for healthcare, and as far as anyone can tell have
never been applied for open knowledge projects entirely underpinned by
unpaid volunteers, especially when there is an absence of context,
such as the "Charter" which is supposed to drive the entire model.

The specific feedback already given on Meta, cannot be reproduced in
the highly hypothetical survey, it's like trying to write on a
blackboard with cheese straws.

Thanks

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 18:01, Chris Keating  wrote:
>
> Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group
> have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future
> structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked
> on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not
> being published at the same time as our recommendations.)
>
> While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey
> for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and
> weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed
> comments.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Recommendations
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Keating
> User:The Land
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> > been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> > Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> > future of our movement.
> >
> > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> > research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> > conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> > to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
> >
> > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> > movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> > They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> > future we want to create together.
> >
> > The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> > your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> > changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> > you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> > of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> > support the strategic direction.
> >
> > There are a few ways to do this:
> > * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> > directly on Meta. [2]
> > * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> > * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> > * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> > or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
> >
> > Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> > into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> > use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> > what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
> >
> > If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > [2]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> > [4]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> > [5]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> > Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> > dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > V. Eingetragen im 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Chris,

There is perhaps some confusion here.  Most Wikipedians are accustomed to a
process of *discussion*, during which a consensus emerges and is accepted
by the community at large, and implemented by community prcesses.  It has
perhaps not been made perfectly clear that this is a *feedback* process,
where the Working Groups publish their recommendations, the community pass
their comments back to the WG, and the WG then collate them and decide the
final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF.  Some of
the angst in previous comments on the list (about lack of time, and so
forth) derives from the fact that this crucial difference has clearly not
been universally understood.

Jeff

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 6:01 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group
> have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future
> structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked
> on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not
> being published at the same time as our recommendations.)
>
> While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey
> for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and
> weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed
> comments.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Recommendations
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Keating
> User:The Land
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> > been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> > Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> > future of our movement.
> >
> > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> > research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> > conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> > to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
> >
> > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> > movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> > They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> > future we want to create together.
> >
> > The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> > your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> > changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> > you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> > of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> > support the strategic direction.
> >
> > There are a few ways to do this:
> > * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> > directly on Meta. [2]
> > * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> > * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> > * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> > or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
> >
> > Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> > into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> > use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> > what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
> >
> > If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > [2]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> > [4]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> > [5]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> > Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> > dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> >
> > ___
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Chris Keating]

Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group
have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future
structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked
on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not
being published at the same time as our recommendations.)

While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey
for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and
weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed
comments.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Recommendations


Thanks,

Chris Keating
User:The Land

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> future of our movement.
>
> Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
>
> The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> future we want to create together.
>
> The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> support the strategic direction.
>
> There are a few ways to do this:
> * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> directly on Meta. [2]
> * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
>
> Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
>
> If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Ilario valdelli]

Hi Nicole,

I suggest also to harmonize a little bit the reccomandations of the 
working groups too.


I had a quick reading and I found several conflictual points among the 
different working groups.


An example is the technology working group where the first 
reccomandation is about a decentralization and I suppose about a 
"strong" decentralization where everyone can contribute to the vision, 
while the Resource Allocation reports the concept of hubs in several 
points of their reccomandations.


In this case to decentralize from one point to another point a 
competence doesn't mean "decentralization" but it's "delocalization". 
Basically it remains a central point of competence delocated 
geographically but basically a central point (so the opposite of 
decentralization).


This is an example but there are several ones and the time is short to 
comment.


Kind regards


On 09/08/2019 20:36, Nicole Ebber wrote:


Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.

If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.

Best wishes,

Nicole

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
[5] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons



___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Leila Zia  wrote:

> * Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
>
Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3
> different options available.
>

And his option of a dedicated project for non-free content has been
already proposed
in 2015  and 2018
, proposed name
*NonFreeWiki */ *FairUseWiki */ *UnCommons */ etc.
Discuss at: recommendation talk page section


I was pretty surprised this was not mentioned in the recommendation. That
proposal answers many questions, missing from the current recommendation.

Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Done,
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 15 August 2019 07:01
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members
will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it
there.

Aron


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free
> and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have
> no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific
> permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that
> can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a
> prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they
> are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto
> projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for
> volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving
> valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could
> automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range
> of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not
> be stored on Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hello Leila,

Just two quick notes on what you've said:
*" We should get comfortable thinking about these trade-offs as we think
about how to bring more diverse people and content to the project" - I face
this argument constantly in my life as an active Wikimedian. University
teachers tell we can have all papers from their university on Commons,
Wikisource, if we allow NC-ND. VIPs tell me they will give a number of
exclusive materials, given that they are blocked from commercial use.
Professional photographers, same story. To all of them I explain this is a
question of a basic principle of the project, the principle of Free
Knowledge, and that this is the essence, this is at the core of Wikimedia
projects, and can't be negotiated. This is how I've been understanding our
communities general thinking and ideals for the many years I've been
around, so changing that to accommodate more diversity really seems
something absolutely alien to our mission as Wikimedians, independently of
the merits of the content that could be incorporated in the projects that
way.
*In order to protect local folklore from "undue exploitation", Mozambique
government has decided that all manifestations of folklore in the country
are protected by copyright, and that they own that copyright. Result: we
end up with an huge cultural gap in Mozambique at the Wikimedia projects.
Not only in Mozambique, but in a number of other countries that apply
similar legal restrictions to this kind of cultural materials.

The solution for both cases has been, for well more than a decade, to
include that content as necessary under special provisions in some of our
projects - SEE EDP at
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy -
depending on approval of the project local community. So the solution for
that problem already exists for long, and this is not only reinventing the
wheel, but doing so at the expense of our most dear core principles and
mission.

Best,
Paulo


Leila Zia  escreveu no dia quinta, 15/08/2019 à(s)
05:42:

> Hi Paulo,
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
>  wrote:
> >
> > If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for
> > the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license
> and
> > commercializes it anyway.
>
> In practice, this can happen. Two points to keep in mind:
>
> * Building trust and relationships with new communities may require
> taking steps that we may not have been taking so far. People operate
> in different contexts and they have varying experiences, and we may
> sometimes have to change the way we do things to include them and
> their knowledge. We should get comfortable thinking about these
> trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and
> content to the project. (I'm not arguing that we should do what this
> proposal says at this point. We should discuss it though in the talk
> page.)
>
> * Having some legal pathway can be attractive to some folks, /even if/
> they don't exercise it. This is an assurance that they can have some
> control over their culture and the narratives around it and I can see
> how this can be important for some marginalized communities. This
> middle step may be needed. Also, if the legal pathway is there, they
> can always some day decide to pursue it.
>
> > If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in
> Commons,
> > in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of
> > the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things
> at
> > the same time.
>
> Two points again: ;)
>
> * Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
> Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3
> different options available.
>
> * This won't be only their problem. It will be our shared problem. If
> Commons ends up not being the solution, we shouldn't stop there. We
> should think through what else we can do to make bringing of their
> knowledge to Wikimedia projects happen. While I don't know what the
> answers are, I know that we should try more. From a narrow research
> perspective: this is immensely important for addressing Wikimedia's
> knowledge gaps for the sake of our own immediate users but also for
> the sake of indirect users of Wikimedia content. Wikimedia is imo one
> of the cornerstones of the Web. The content we collectively bring to
> Wikimedia projects is no longer /just/ used directly on Wikipedia
> (even that alone is enough argument to attempt to find solutions for
> the kind of gaps we're talking about). It's being used by a variety of
> technologies to build algorithms and machines that have impact on
> people's lives. Gaps in Wikimedia can become a source of bias and gaps
> on search engines, home devices, school material, ... .
>
> I'll keep the specific comments about the proposals for the talk pages.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> ___
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

"All change has negative connotations to some members of the community".
That statement may be true, but it is not useful. Not even slightly. It could 
serve as a preamble to a detailed exposition, but on its own in the specific 
context it just looks arrogant and incompetent.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Andy Mabbett
Sent: 14 August 2019 18:08
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W  wrote:

> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed

I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually
dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative
connotations to some members of the community".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

That is a way you can look at it, but is it realistic? (it would depend on 
details, which we do not have) SF is an expensive place to pay staff, and the 
SF point of view may be overrepresented. Spreading it around a bit may be 
better value for money, and could improve diversity and inclusion. The devil is 
in the details, and we have no details yet. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 14 August 2019 16:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work
now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global
South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories
from San Francisco to Dhaka because wages are much lower there, while
parading it as moving towards "diversity" and "inclusion".

Paulo

Anders Wennersten  escreveu no dia segunda,
12/08/2019 à(s) 18:31:

> I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
>
> I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but
> as I understand there are two key messages:
>
> *To distribute  many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
> locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is
> most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get
> more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural
> development as out organisation mature over time
>
> *To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement
> in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly
> atmosphere  where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is
> long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
>
> I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
>
>   Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> > Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> > They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> > thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> > important for our movement’s future. They are the product of
> conversations
> > over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups
> are
> > eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> > complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> > wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> > recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> > reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> > individuals.
> >
> > Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> > the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> > of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> > the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> > questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial
> collaboration,
> > offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is
> a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> >> incorporate
> >> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> >> licensing scheme?"
> >>
> >> We can't and no one can.
> >>
> >> Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
> >> specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> >> facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> >> Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> >> without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> under
> >> an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> for
> >> it. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members
will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it
there.

Aron


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free
> and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have
> no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific
> permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that
> can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a
> prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they
> are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto
> projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for
> volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving
> valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could
> automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range
> of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not
> be stored on Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Leila Zia]

Hi Paulo,

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for
> the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and
> commercializes it anyway.

In practice, this can happen. Two points to keep in mind:

* Building trust and relationships with new communities may require
taking steps that we may not have been taking so far. People operate
in different contexts and they have varying experiences, and we may
sometimes have to change the way we do things to include them and
their knowledge. We should get comfortable thinking about these
trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and
content to the project. (I'm not arguing that we should do what this
proposal says at this point. We should discuss it though in the talk
page.)

* Having some legal pathway can be attractive to some folks, /even if/
they don't exercise it. This is an assurance that they can have some
control over their culture and the narratives around it and I can see
how this can be important for some marginalized communities. This
middle step may be needed. Also, if the legal pathway is there, they
can always some day decide to pursue it.

> If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons,
> in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of
> the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at
> the same time.

Two points again: ;)

* Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3
different options available.

* This won't be only their problem. It will be our shared problem. If
Commons ends up not being the solution, we shouldn't stop there. We
should think through what else we can do to make bringing of their
knowledge to Wikimedia projects happen. While I don't know what the
answers are, I know that we should try more. From a narrow research
perspective: this is immensely important for addressing Wikimedia's
knowledge gaps for the sake of our own immediate users but also for
the sake of indirect users of Wikimedia content. Wikimedia is imo one
of the cornerstones of the Web. The content we collectively bring to
Wikimedia projects is no longer /just/ used directly on Wikipedia
(even that alone is enough argument to attempt to find solutions for
the kind of gaps we're talking about). It's being used by a variety of
technologies to build algorithms and machines that have impact on
people's lives. Gaps in Wikimedia can become a source of bias and gaps
on search engines, home devices, school material, ... .

I'll keep the specific comments about the proposals for the talk pages.

Best,
Leila

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for
the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and
commercializes it anyway.

If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons,
in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of
the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at
the same time. If it is notable, we may try to accommodate it in some
projects that allow that kind of content under an exception policy.

In any case, I don't believe it is in Wikimedia scope to worry about the
possible misuses people can do of the content we provide, and much less to
subvert our license policy in order to avoid stuff we should not be worried
with in first place.

Best,
Paulo


A quarta, 14 de ago de 2019, 23:27, Lucas Werkmeister <
m...@lucaswerkmeister.de> escreveu:

> I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same
> legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must
> admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to
> share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any
> problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo
> than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be
> written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure
> their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process
> first, with uncertain outcome.
>
> (I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft,
> so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.)
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> > All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
> > certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
> > licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
> > concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
> > produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as
> personal
> > image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
> > logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by
> 3rd
> > parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
> > That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue
> the
> > infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
> > their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
> > get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do
> it
> > freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just
> because
> > some other people, which have not any legal right over that content,
> claim
> > that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > geni  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning 
> wrote:
> >> .
> >>> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> >>>  >,2
> >>> <
> >>
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
> >>> )
> >>> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show
> the
> >>> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
> >>>
> >>> Aron
> >>
> >> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
> >> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
> >> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
> >> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
> >> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gergo Tisza]

Also, keep in mind that feedback on what recommendations you wanted /
expected to see but did not find is just as much worth as criticism (or
praise) of the existing ones.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 21:31 Chris Keating 
wrote:

> >
> >
> > I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals
> and
> > I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those
> proposals.
> > I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually
> dismissed,
> > nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community.
> I
> > would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best
> to
> > do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> > cool might be good before engaging.
>
>
> Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will
> definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the
> recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than
> angry ones, of course :)
>
> (I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond
> promptly, though!)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Lucas Werkmeister]

I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same
legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must
admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to
share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any
problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo
than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be
written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure
their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process
first, with uncertain outcome.

(I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft,
so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.)

Cheers,
Lucas

On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
> certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
> licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
> concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
> produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal
> image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
> logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd
> parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
> That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the
> infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
> their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
> get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it
> freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because
> some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim
> that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
> 
> Paulo
> 
> geni  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
> 
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning  wrote:
>> .
>>> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
>>> ,2
>>> <
>> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
>>> )
>>> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
>>> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
>>>
>>> Aron
>>
>> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
>> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
>> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
>> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
>> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
>>
>> ___
>> 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 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal
image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd
parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the
infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it
freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because
some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim
that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.

Paulo

geni  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning  wrote:
> .
> > The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> > ,2
> > <
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
> >)
> > that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> > benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
> >
> > Aron
>
> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
>
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[geni]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning  wrote:
.
> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> ,2
> )
> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
>
> Aron

1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Chris Keating]

>
>
> I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and
> I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals.
> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed,
> nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I
> would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to
> do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> cool might be good before engaging.


Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will
definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the
recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than
angry ones, of course :)

(I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond
promptly, though!)

Thanks,

Chris
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W  wrote:

> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed

I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually
dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative
connotations to some members of the community".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

" I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually
dismissed" - Don't worry, it is not "their ideas. As Nicole Ebber
explained, those recommendations resulted from a lot of different inputs,
and none of them is supposed to be the brainchild of anyone inside the WGs.
If they are nonsense, don't be afraid to go there and tell/write what you
think.

Paulo

Pine W  escreveu no dia terça, 13/08/2019 à(s) 22:09:

> I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC
> and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want
> media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's
> suggestion is good.
>
> A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on Wikipedias, where
> the media could get a lot of visibility but also cause additional licensing
> complexity beyond what we already have with the English Wikipedia fair use
> exception. This issue would need some deliberation, but any outcome
> wouldn't be a blocker to a new repository for hosting NC and ND media.
>
> I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and
> I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals.
> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed,
> nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I
> would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to
> do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> cool might be good before engaging.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work
now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global
South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories
from San Francisco to Dhaka because wages are much lower there, while
parading it as moving towards "diversity" and "inclusion".

Paulo

Anders Wennersten  escreveu no dia segunda,
12/08/2019 à(s) 18:31:

> I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
>
> I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but
> as I understand there are two key messages:
>
> *To distribute  many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
> locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is
> most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get
> more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural
> development as out organisation mature over time
>
> *To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement
> in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly
> atmosphere  where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is
> long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
>
> I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
>
>   Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> > Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> > They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> > thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> > important for our movement’s future. They are the product of
> conversations
> > over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups
> are
> > eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> > complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> > wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> > recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> > reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> > individuals.
> >
> > Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> > the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> > of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> > the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> > questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial
> collaboration,
> > offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is
> a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> >> incorporate
> >> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> >> licensing scheme?"
> >>
> >> We can't and no one can.
> >>
> >> Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
> >> specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> >> facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> >> Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> >> without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> under
> >> an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> for
> >> it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
> >> then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
> what
> >> one does.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> >> You're
> >>> the only one telling people to shut up here.
> >>>
> >>> And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> >> incorporate
> >>> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> >>> licensing scheme?
> >>> ___
> >>> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Pine W]

I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC
and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want
media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's
suggestion is good.

A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on Wikipedias, where
the media could get a lot of visibility but also cause additional licensing
complexity beyond what we already have with the English Wikipedia fair use
exception. This issue would need some deliberation, but any outcome
wouldn't be a blocker to a new repository for hosting NC and ND media.

I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and
I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals.
I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed,
nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I
would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to
do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
cool might be good before engaging.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

See bottom for reply.

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nathan
Sent: 13 August 2019 01:18
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
> section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
> text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
> use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
> project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
> including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
> intact without misappropriation, etc."
>
> The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
> awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
> resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
> archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
>
> Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
> called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
> policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
>
> I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
> Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
> English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
> Wikisource volunteers.
>
> To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
> demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
> policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
> for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
> an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
> implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
> compelling argument.
>
> Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
>
> -Pete
> --
> Pete Forsyth
> Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
> Commons, and Meta Wiki.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
> ?
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
> [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
>
>
>
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the
autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission
and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that
the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that
the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be
adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND
content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a
different starting policy foundation?

Response:
If the movement as a whole considers it desirable to host a repository for 
NC/ND content, then they should indeed create a new project where it would be 
welcome, and not push it where it is not welcome, because the volunteers who 
have is foisted on them are likely to leave if they don’t like it. If there is 
enough support for the content, there should be enough volunteers to deal with 
the content. If there are not enough volunteers, then the people who think the 
content is important enough can pay for people to curate it. If it succeeds, 
fine. If it fails, also fine, as it would not destroy anything else while 
failing.
Cheers,
Peter
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and 
pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new 
problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that 
project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can be used. Keep 
Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the 
not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is 
all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not 
allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to 
spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a 
hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project 
if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of 
why the file could not be stored on Commons.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 13 August 2019 00:41
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko  wrote:

The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".


I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
content converted to "unfree":

   - Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
   choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
   successfully.
   - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
   limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
   Internet-in-a-Box).
   - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
   negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
   encyclopedia.
   - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
   be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content
   is available with free license.
   - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
   and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent
   with reverse-image search.
   - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
   understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these
   licenses when it's truly necessary.



> See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf


Thank you, it's really excellent.


> I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
>
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> long in the Public Domain.
>

My bad. 1st article
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html> is
about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
2nd article
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf>
is
about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
well as public ire."

It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.


Aron
___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:40, Aron Manning  wrote:

> 1st article
>  is
> about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
> images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
> using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."

You're quoting out of context. The words you quote are proceeded by
"The lawsuit says that...". So it's no more than an allegation, which
may well prove to be false. No argument is made, that an "NC" licence
could be applied to images that were taken "almost 170 years " ago and
whose copyright has therefore almost certainly expired. If such images
were published by a GLAM under an NC licence, we'd likely ignore it
and treat them as PD.

> 2nd article
> 
> is
> about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
> examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
> significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
> wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
> ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
> and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
> attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
> well as public ire."

The original is paywalled for me, but from what you quote, none of
those case studies concerns the use of media which could have been
released under an NC licence, and no argument is made that such a
licence could be applied to anything which would prevent such cultural
appropriation.

> It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
> such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.

I see no basis for concluding that NC or ND address the probelm to
which you refer. Perhaps you would care to
elaborate on your reasoning, with examples?



--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

If that is so, then what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Again
By now we should be getting used to it.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Chris Keating
Sent: 12 August 2019 18:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hi Yaroslav,


> No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
> decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
> the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
> listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
> accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
>
>
And that is why, even a year into this working group process, a number of
the recommendations are *still* phrased as suggestions that the Wikimedia
movement collectively should develop principles for such-and-such an area.

I think many people are reading these draft recommendations as something
they are not.

Also, I find it very ironic that many people are reacting to these strategy
process as if it was some method of the WMF inflicting its will on everyone
else, when actually many of the recommendations would result in very
significant changes to the WMF as an organisation.

Chris
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Pine W]

Thanks for the update, Nicole.

As I have been reading portions of the recommendations, I am finding it
helpful to remind myself that these proposals are drafts, and to assume
good faith when reading them. I have a variety of thoughts regarding
proposals, including "I completely agree", "This is less ambitious than I
think it should be", "That is impractical", "That is an interesting idea
that we should consider in more detail", "I agree that there is problem X
but this proposal would lead to more harm than good".

I suggest that the strategy team and working groups develop these drafts
into thoughtful and deep documents with extensive supporting references
where possible, so that we can have a more informed discussion about the
merits of the ideas. I would like to encourage working group members to
keep their minds open to the possibility that proposals may be good to
modify, enhance, diminish, or withdraw based on the additional research and
their discussions with the broader community. Collegial and thoughtful
discussions will probably be fruitful in the long term.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )




On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 11:37 Nicole Ebber  wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> future of our movement.
>
> Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
>
> The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> future we want to create together.
>
> The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> support the strategic direction.
>
> There are a few ways to do this:
> * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> directly on Meta. [2]
> * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
>
> Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
>
> If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:18 PM Nathan  wrote:

>
> One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
> movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
> movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities.


I think that idea does come up pretty often, and is usually, and
appropriately, viewed with some skepticism.

An idea I think is too little discussed is that, when you've had great
success at assembling hundreds of thousands of people to work on something,
it is a very risky proposition to make fundamental changes to that
"something" without first undergoing a deliberate and comprehensive
approach to building buy-in throughout that community. (See "Spanish Fork")

-Pete
--
Pete Forsyth
User:Peteforsyth on (primarily) English Wikipedia, English Wikisource,
Wikidata, Commons, and Meta Wiki.
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Nathan]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
> section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
> text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
> use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
> project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
> including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
> intact without misappropriation, etc."
>
> The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
> awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
> resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
> archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
>
> Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
> called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
> policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
>
> I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
> Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
> English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
> Wikisource volunteers.
>
> To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
> demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
> policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
> for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
> an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
> implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
> compelling argument.
>
> Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
>
> -Pete
> --
> Pete Forsyth
> Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
> Commons, and Meta Wiki.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
> ?
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
> [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
>
>
>
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the
autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission
and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that
the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that
the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be
adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND
content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a
different starting policy foundation?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Pete Forsyth]

Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
intact without misappropriation, etc."

The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.

Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]

I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
Wikisource volunteers.

To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
compelling argument.

Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.

-Pete
--
Pete Forsyth
Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
Commons, and Meta Wiki.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
?
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy



On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:41 PM Aron Manning  wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko  wrote:
>
> The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> > uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> > as "free".
>
>
> I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
> uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
> the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
> think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
> do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
> in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.
>
> There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
> content converted to "unfree":
>
>- Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
>choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
>successfully.
>- At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
>limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
>Internet-in-a-Box).
>- If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
>negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
>encyclopedia.
>- If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
>be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar
> content
>is available with free license.
>- If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
>and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an
> extent
>with reverse-image search.
>- After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
>understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses
> these
>licenses when it's truly necessary.
>
>
>
> > See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf
>
>
> Thank you, it's really excellent.
>
>
> > I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
> >
> interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> > long in the Public Domain.
> >
>
> My bad. 1st article
>  is
> about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
> images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
> using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
> 2nd article
> <
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf
> >
> is
> about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko  wrote:

The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".


I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
content converted to "unfree":

   - Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
   choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
   successfully.
   - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
   limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
   Internet-in-a-Box).
   - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
   negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
   encyclopedia.
   - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
   be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content
   is available with free license.
   - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
   and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent
   with reverse-image search.
   - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
   understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these
   licenses when it's truly necessary.



> See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf


Thank you, it's really excellent.


> I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
>
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> long in the Public Domain.
>

My bad. 1st article
 is
about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
2nd article

is
about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
well as public ire."

It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.


Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:43, Philip Kopetzky  wrote:

> these are still rather talking points than specific
> visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.

Beyond what I have already said, I do not see any merit in discussing
glib statements like "All change has negative connotations to some
members of the community", whether as "talking points" or anything
else

I would be happy to understand the thought process behind the working
group's proposals, and to discuss that, if they care to explain it by
giving a sensible and considered set of answers to the question "Could
this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Aron,

Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Aron Manning <
aronmanni...@gmail.com>:

>
> Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
> that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
> possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a
> very welcome change.
>


The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
as "free". See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf



> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> ,2
> <
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
> >)
> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
>
>
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
long in the Public Domain.

Kind regards
Ziko





> Aron
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
> > particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
> > material that may be important to minority communities, such as
> > traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
> > those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
> > tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
> > change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
> > educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
> > academic papers, academic books etc.
> >
> > The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
> > the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
> > * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
> > * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
> > community.
> > This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
> >
> >
>
> ᐧ
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Philip Kopetzky]

Hi Andy,

the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they
are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in
time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final
recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific
visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.

Best,
Philip

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 18:53, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
> > This is a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
>
> Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
>
> Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
>
> All change has negative connotations to some members of the community
>
> to be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant
> risks?
>
> As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor
> indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of
> collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly
> argue that it is any of those things.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed
changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort.
I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil
manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities.

The Terms of Use/Licensing Policy recommendation

is
more broad than the addition of NC and ND licensing.
"we assume that it would be necessary to *modify the “Terms of Use”
especially to address community health, foster diversity and address
systemic biases.*"
This would be a clear statement of the Foundation's future purpose,
therefore I strongly agree with it.

Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a
very welcome change.
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
,2
)
that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.

Aron


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ  wrote:

> The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
> particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
> material that may be important to minority communities, such as
> traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
> those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
> tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
> change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
> educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
> academic papers, academic books etc.
>
> The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
> the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
> * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
> * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
> community.
> This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
>
>

ᐧ
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Anders Wennersten]

I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.

I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but 
as I understand there are two key messages:


*To distribute  many of the function now at WMF in SF to different 
locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is 
most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get 
more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural 
development as out organisation mature over time


*To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement 
in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly 
atmosphere  where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is 
long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.


I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.

 Anders



Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:

Dear all,

We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations
over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are
eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
individuals.

Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration,
offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a
process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.

Best wishes,
Nicole

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:


"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
licensing scheme?"

We can't and no one can.

Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what
one does.

Todd

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky 
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.

You're

the only one telling people to shut up here.

And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can

incorporate

indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
licensing scheme?
___
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 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber  wrote:

> This is a
> process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.

Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:

Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?

All change has negative connotations to some members of the community

to be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant risks?

As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor
indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of
collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly
argue that it is any of those things.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Risker]

Ziko and others - please, please provide your feedback to all of the
working groups on all of the ideas.  Please tell us when you see a draft
recommendation that seems to be right.  Please tell us when you see a draft
recommendation that you think is unreasonable - and tell us what causes
your concern.  Some of the draft recommendations are likely to sound like
good ideas (or even "this is what we do now!") while others will seem to be
pretty radical.  If you see a draft recommendation that you think is really
going "too far", it would be really helpful to hear from you as community
members what you'd consider to be a reasonable alternative, or a middle
ground that you think would be acceptable.

I'm on the Roles & Responsibilities working group, and I am seeing several
recommendations from other groups that I plan to comment upon, too; some of
them seem like really good ideas to me, but there are ones that I don't
really think are a great idea, too.

Risker/Anne


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 12:25, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:
>
> > Dear all,.
>
>
>
> > As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
>
>
> Hello Nicole,
> For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would
> such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive"
> and not "solution-oriented"?
> Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to
> be solved by ND and NC content?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
> > > specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the
> underlying
> > > facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> > > Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> > > without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> > under
> > > an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> > for
> > > it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But
> even
> > > then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
> what
> > > one does.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> > philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> > > You're
> > > > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> > > >
> > > > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> > > incorporate
> > > > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the
> current
> > > > licensing scheme?
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > ___
> > 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Chris Keating]

Hi Ziko,

There is in fact a rationale within the text of the recommendation. In
essence, it's that some communities will never share their heritage if it
can then be re-used in a manner they consider disrespectful.

Of course one can disagree with that statement on a factual level, or ask
for evidence behind it.

Or one can agree with it but disagree with the intention of the
recommendation.

Or one can agree with the intention, but disagree about the the
effectiveness of allowing some NC or ND content on some Wikimedia projects
as a method of achieving it.

What is rather less constructive is gathering pitchforks and flaming
torches against the OUTRAGE of THE WMF making every Wikimedia project
immediately accept unfree content.

Chris


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, 17:25 Ziko van Dijk,  wrote:

> Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:
>
> > Dear all,.
>
>
>
> > As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
>
>
> Hello Nicole,
> For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would
> such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive"
> and not "solution-oriented"?
> Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to
> be solved by ND and NC content?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
> > > specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the
> underlying
> > > facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> > > Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> > > without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> > under
> > > an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> > for
> > > it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But
> even
> > > then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
> what
> > > one does.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> > philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> > > You're
> > > > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> > > >
> > > > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> > > incorporate
> > > > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the
> current
> > > > licensing scheme?
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:

> Dear all,.



> As such, constructive
> feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.


Hello Nicole,
For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would
such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive"
and not "solution-oriented"?
Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to
be solved by ND and NC content?
Kind regards
Ziko





> > specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> > facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> > Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> > without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> under
> > an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> for
> > it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
> > then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what
> > one does.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> > You're
> > > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> > >
> > > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> > incorporate
> > > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> > > licensing scheme?
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Chris Keating]

Hi Yaroslav,


> No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
> decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
> the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
> listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
> accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
>
>
And that is why, even a year into this working group process, a number of
the recommendations are *still* phrased as suggestions that the Wikimedia
movement collectively should develop principles for such-and-such an area.

I think many people are reading these draft recommendations as something
they are not.

Also, I find it very ironic that many people are reacting to these strategy
process as if it was some method of the WMF inflicting its will on everyone
else, when actually many of the recommendations would result in very
significant changes to the WMF as an organisation.

Chris
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Yaroslav Blanter]

No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:51 PM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations
> over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are
> eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> individuals.
>
> Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration,
> offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a
> process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> > incorporate
> > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> > licensing scheme?"
> >
> > We can't and no one can.
> >
> > Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
> > specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> > facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> > Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> > without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> under
> > an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> for
> > it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
> > then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what
> > one does.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> > You're
> > > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> > >
> > > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> > incorporate
> > > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> > > licensing scheme?
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Nicole Ebber]

Dear all,

We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations
over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are
eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
individuals.

Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration,
offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a
process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.

Best wishes,
Nicole

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:

> "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> incorporate
> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> licensing scheme?"
>
> We can't and no one can.
>
> Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
> specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under
> an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for
> it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
> then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what
> one does.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky  >
> wrote:
>
> > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> You're
> > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> >
> > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> incorporate
> > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> > licensing scheme?
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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,