Thanks for all your great work. We will miss you!
Le 12 février 2016 02:24:55 CET, Siko Bouterse a
>Dear friends and colleagues,
>I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff
>for the past 4 ½
I am surprised to hear the news. I am pretty sure you will do an amazing
job wherever you end up in you next venture. But Wikimedia will miss your
good services. That is also the reason why you and your work will not be
I enjoyed working with you during our fellowship project. I
Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
thanks for your work, and good luck on your future endeavours.
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:24:55 -0800
Siko Bouterse wrote:
> Dear friends and colleagues,
> I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff
Actually, you are complaining.
I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many
self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics. I'd hardly put Pine in
that group. The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be
described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous.
On 12/02/2016 01:24, Siko Bouterse wrote:
Dear friends and colleagues,
I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
Transparency, integrity, community and free
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> As some of you know, Community Engagement had a small realignment last
> Now that it’s further along, we thought it was a good time to
> formally share. :)
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically
SO sorry to read this! My work with you on the IEG committee was one of the
most inspiring experiences I have had in my years as a Wikipedian. I guess
we will only learn after a few years what the effects were of some of the
decisions we made ton that committee, but I like to think that some of
Just a reminder that the Community Engagement office hour will be taking
place today in approximately two hours (1900 UTC, 1100 US Pacific time) in
On Feb 10, 2016 1:22 PM, "Karen Brown" wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> The Community Engagement
This Grant document for a “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia” is
*specifically and overtly stating* that its purpose is to start work
on an search engine as a rival for Google/Yahoo. That is the end goal
of the project. Near near the bottom of page 10 it summarises the
whole project as:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Pine W wrote:
> I've been stewing for awhile to sort out my thoughts about the search for a
> new department lead for CE. Since I might be busy on Friday, and the choice
> of the new department is likely a topic of broad public interest,
Rather, we should spend more, possibly several times as much. We need much
wider participation, both for Wikimania and for regional conferences, and
the only practical way to achieve that is to pay full expenses for all
regular participants who want to attend. It should not be an elite event.
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board
When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Karen Brown wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> The Community Engagement department will be hosting an IRC office hour this
> Friday, the 12th of February, at
some rules and guidelines are a throw back to earlier years and should be
adjusted for rather than given significance over current practices.
where once a donation of 100,00 was considered potentially as content
influencing now its appreciated for what it is, the reality is that its not
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?
> Anthony Cole
Sure, Karen posted it on meta shortly after:
Mail list logo