Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller > wrote > [1]: > > > Hi, > > there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

A year ago I started this topic and been asked to reopen him before the next elections. I'll be happy if the election committee will take this issue in consideration. *Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which eve

[Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maili

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > It's horribly ugly, I expected more. > > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't > know) but we had way better designs bef

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Greetings, Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I wanted to share some info on where things stand right now with this year's elections. 1. The committee did discuss the issue of affiliate staff having a vote. It appears that a number of affiliates (not all) allow their staff to partici

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never. I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement equivalent of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

Looks fine to me. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk < tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from > several volunteers. > > On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > > > It's horribly ugly, I expected more. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

To be clear by "our banners" I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections banners. ;) -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. > Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) > > Th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be changed? Passing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

+1 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400 > From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections > > My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never. > > I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates) who are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to Wikimedia movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are outsiders who are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be lazy. If

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance, it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be accessibility-orient

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

I should note it was a WMF design consultant that did this and not a volunteer (well - that it was not a committee volunteer I can verify). My understanding was they were working from UX team's guidelines as they design other banners for WMF. The request that we received was to go with a banner des

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad. Nicely done. :-) Kudos to you, Kunal & everyone else involved in finally bringing this one home. Eloquence~metawiki ___ Wikimedia-l mailing lis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Eloquence~metawiki Geekpoints, +2 *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

Really nicely done. Given how you spoke of this earlier I thought for sure this would not be as seamless as it appears to have gone. Congrats again. /a On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > > Eloquence~metawiki > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

Aye, I asked a designer to give some nice options and presented them to the committee. While there are certainly some people who have not liked the banner I have generally heard good feedback overall from community members (significantly more good then bad) and have made adjustments to the banner t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level. This is a di

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Personally, I'm less concerned about staff votes than I am about having only a relatively small number of community members vote. If there is a substantial turnout of community votes then the enfranchisement of staff is a non-issue. I think there would be more cause for concern if is only 1800 tota

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Two quick notes: 1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote. 2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as C

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

That was three notes - not two - sorry. ;P On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > Two quick notes: > > 1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote. > > 2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one > of the ways they vary f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

I was speaking in support of keeping the current policy which allows WMF staff to vote even if they do not meet the eligibility guidelines with a volunteer account. The issue of allowing staff in affiliated organizations who are not volunteers vote is more complex because they could have minimal i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: > I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with > their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. > So do I. :) > Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site > contributor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Re: Gregory. I did not mean incorporation in the legal sense, rather, I meant it in the community sense, sorry for not being clear :). To clarify, I am not opposed to lowering the barriers to entry, I am opposed to doing both that and this, too. I see two threads of thought here, automatically gra

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members of the community. So if we decide that employees of community organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of Trustees. Whether a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On 15-04-22 01:49 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians > have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort. Except that for most people, editing Wikipedia (or involving oneself in some manner around the project) is a /diversion/ from their jobs and whatnot whereas for some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for. Yeah, no COI there *at all*. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nathan wrote: > The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members > of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Aleksey Bilogur wrote: > Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the > decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for. > > Yeah, no COI there *at all*. > > Er, no more than any staff member of the WMF. And for both org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore > wrote: > > > I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with > > their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. > > > > So do I. :) > > > > Perhaps th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On 22 April 2015 at 19:26, Sydney Poore wrote: ... > At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization > (GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of > making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is a > member of our m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

Nice work, Kunal and Keegan. :-) Dan On 21 April 2015 at 23:34, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller > wrote > [1]: > > > Hi, > > there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue. > I > > > > ask the Board to review this mail carefull

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

Hi, I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore and please post me in the right direction). I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least two users where the information that appears about when they started editing does not match the info

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Eduardo Testart wrote: > Hi, > > I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore > and please post me in the right direction). > > I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least > two users where the informati

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference > between when an account was created locally and when an account was created > globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were > attached to globa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov > wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore > > wrote: > > > > > I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me > with > > > their dedication to the mission

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

Hi, The case I found says: - Registered: XX feb 2011 (4 years ago), which is actually the date when the CentralAuth claims that the account was "attached on". But: - First edit: XX may 2006 This dates do not match when an account was created locally and when an account was created glo