Gerard,
this is called "narrowing focus" by WMF, you see.
But you wanted a comment on the FDC. The only thing I can say is: To base
such a decision on things like "the FDC feels" and "to appear" and "it is
likely" (all quotes from their text within a single paragraph) makes me
think that they get
I can very well understand why people are careful about commenting. Most
people who have the insight to make sensible comments on the con located
matter have a stake in it. They are active in the wmf, want to run for a
committee in which process they might be deemed too opinionated or they
fear tha
Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought
they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly
what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need
to change in order to bid more successfully. I found them encouraging
and a good demonstration
hi Gerard,
you seem to mix two things: one is the FDC, the other is WMF and its funds
processing practices. I can only speak for my part in the FDC (but I
generally agree that funding scheme and policies require thinking over, and
I definitely do not think there should be a "second class citizens
On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ wrote:
> Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought
> they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly
> what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need
> to change in order to bid more successfully.
On 23 November 2014 at 22:30, pajz wrote:
> On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ wrote:
>
> > Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought
> > they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly
> > what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for
Hi Darcy,
I am concerned at what appears to be deliberate suppression of
questions raising governance related issues from the wikimedia UK
email list. The email below is an example. The list was always
intended to be independent of the UK chapter, though one of the
moderators is one of your employ
Gerard Meijssen, 23/11/2014 08:27:
I am really surprised how little attention this is getting.
It seems to me that there isn't much to say; I see political decisions,
they are what they are. One of them is "detail detail detail"; while WMF
can just throw a slogan on paper and get millions for
Craig, Patrik,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Craig Franklin
wrote:
>
> The other danger of across the board cuts like this, especially where the
> rationale is not clear, is that entities may start to inflate their
> requests, factoring an expected 10% or 20% to be shaved off the top by the
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We
> would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be
> funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
>
While the latter may
hi,
I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by
apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of
lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily
what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.
Please, obs
I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
*Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1
It's important to know the timeline.
Probably paying someone to be a member of the wikipedian community would
produce more *statistical impact* in short time but less *real impact*
in longtime.
The problem is to know if the aim is to have numbers or to have a real
and lontime impact.
regar
Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by
bots. What is the link for this?
Rupert
On Nov 23, 2014 2:59 PM, "Anders Wennersten"
wrote:
> I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
>
Hi Dariusz,
thanks for the quick response.
On 23 November 2014 at 14:52, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by
> apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of
> lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of cour
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>I am really surprised how little attention this is getting.
Don't worry, I'm paying attention.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=10611792#About_the_FDC
When I look at the composition of the Funds Dissemination Committee, it's
difficult for me to get too upset.
Hi,
apologies for the lengthy answer.
2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> I have a few questions, observations. When I read the arguments for cutting
> the request of the German chapter, I get the impression that the Germans
> are punished.
Can you please elaborate on where you get thi
2014-11-23 13:50 GMT+01:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> Finally, I see hostility towards attempts at technological decentralisation
> (e.g. Kiwix). But here I hope I'm mistaken.
You are:
«Wikimedia CH has been very successful in offline activities/Kiwix,
and is effectively developing tools for broader
rupert THURNER skrev den 2014-11-23 15:19:
Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by
bots. What is the link for this?
Rupert
*Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013*
*1 October 2014*
All editors Sweden Swedish 2,289 2,2
>
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the
> Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean,
> practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual
> aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
>
>
>
Practical
2014-11-23 14:52 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by
> apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of
> lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily
> what you're proposing, you
Fae,
Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found
yourself in on another. Wikimedia-l is neither a court of appeals for
Wikimedia-related lists nor a bullhorn for your personal grievances.
Austin
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Fæ wrote:
> Hi Darcy,
>
> I am concerned at wh
Fæ wrote:
>Could you please confirm that neither you, nor your employees, are
>manipulating this public list to your political advantage.
This is unreasonable. We don't require pledges of fealty on-demand from
list moderators.
Austin Hair wrote:
>Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble
Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision
to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual
proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then
go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary
impl
well, we do have detailed discussions, as you describe. It is the final
allocation that fundamentally DOES NOT rely on an assumption that it is the
FDC, who should point to what needs to be cut. All in all, this is
unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically
advice, we ca
Hi Anders,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:59, Anders Wennersten
wrote:
> The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012**1
> October 2013* *1 October 2014*
> All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,48
I was rather puzzled by this email, then realized I had posted to
Wikimedia-l rather than Wikimediauk-l as was my intention. Apologies
for that slip.
Thanks,
Fae
On 23 November 2014 at 16:37, Austin Hair wrote:
> Fae,
>
> Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found
> yourself
Fair enough regarding the cross-posting. As for Wikimediauk-l, I'll
leave that issue there.
Austin
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Fæ wrote:
> I was rather puzzled by this email, then realized I had posted to
> Wikimedia-l rather than Wikimediauk-l as was my intention. Apologies
> for that sli
I disagree, the question raised is relevant to the Wikimedia movement as a
whole.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 02:37, Austin Hair wrote:
> Fae,
>
> Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found
> yourself in on another. Wikimedia-l is neither a court of appeals for
> Wikimedia-relat
To clarify: I would like to see a more strong mechanism for review of Chapters
work. This includes thorough feedback channels about how Chapters communicate,
how they spend their funding. Including means to dissolve a Chapter if a large
chunk of people believes it is not working well (such as, p
Wikimedia UK doesn't run wikimediauk-l as such. (This is a point many
list members have made very strongly over the years.) It's a list for
UK-related Wikimedia-related things, although that definitely includes
WMUK.
On 23 November 2014 at 21:28, svetlana wrote:
> I disagree, the question raised
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 18:05, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> All in all, this is
> unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically
> advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and
> what needs to be shut down.
>
sure, I understand this, b
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz wrote:
>
> One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
> wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters
> as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC
> process. Is this bo
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
> The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
the introduction of the superprotect right. I
On behalf of the Wikimania Jury Committee, we would like to let the community
know that the deadline for receiving bids to host Wikimania in 2016 has passed.
Of the 6 unofficial bids that were listed, only two were deemed qualified
for our review: Esino Lario, Italy and Manila,
Philippines.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 10:55, Juergen Fenn wrote:
> 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
>
> > The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
>
> I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
> for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedi
Hoi,
Ever heard of "cherry picking" and of independent organisations ? If I were
to be dependent on this process I would hate it SOOO much.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 November 2014 at 23:30, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz wrote:
>
> >
> > One more question
Hoi,
This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed
without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
Thanks,
GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn
wrote:
> 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
>
> > The decline in
Dear Gerald,
you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move
forward.
And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was
understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.
Best regards
Jens Best
Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" :
>
Hoi,
Well it is mightely well hidden. Or in other words you are preaching to
your choir but outside the immediate sphere of influence it is not heard
far from it, I am really upset by what happened and now the fall out that
was waiting to happen.
Propaganda.. REALLY ? I am my own man and at that I
Well,
you maybe true with the fact that some of it is "hidden", but if you have
to start clearing the mess you inherited for good not every necessary
action you undertake is immediately seen. True on that. Sustainable
Structure and real impact is a little bit more complicated to establish and
to n
Gerard Meijssen skrev den 2014-11-24 07:18:
Hoi,
This is not at all what is considered.
I wonder where you source for this comes from. I has been a member of
FDC even if not any longer. The Board stated last December that
investment in chapter must show clearer impact. Lila did just a few
Hoi,
As there is this constant call for more paper work for chapters, it has to
be understood that this is exactly what kills the productivity of chapters.
There are always more people with their opinion why this that or the other
is amiss. They all have their arguments why they think they are righ
Hoi,
Sorry if I am not clear. My understanding of the mail I replied to was the
point that the Germans were their usual self in their reaction to the
Visual Editor and were punished for that. THIS is in my opinion not the
case. The argument was about dismissing Pavel in such a way that it cost
tons
44 matches
Mail list logo
