And another is the reigning world champion in Nomic...
On Mar 9, 2016 11:19 AM, "Gordon Joly" wrote:
> On 09/03/16 15:00, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > With Computers coming down in price and Artificial Intelligence programs
> > steadily improving
> Yes, indeed. A machine
On 03/09/2016 07:57 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> I'm interested in drilling down on these issues a bit. As far as I can
> tell, there is nothing in the actual bylaws which forbids WMF employees
> from being board members, although "conventional wisdom" seems to agree
> there is a conflict
On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real
> solution will involve
Ariel Glenn writes:
> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently;
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it
Minutes review doesn't need to be prolonged; the longer you wait the less
participants remember. Online board votes can
On 3/9/16 3:46 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Jimmy, could the Board at least provide an explanation for why it has taken
> such a long time to publish the minutes?
I don't see why not. I've not been involved with the publishing of the
minutes personally, so I don't know the details. I am unaware
In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more
representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work
force, some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen would
represent large special interest groups
The TU would have their members and the only moment
On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and
> appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body has
> now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the
> organization that it ostensibly manages that
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales
> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
there are much more
Apologies. Updated hyperlink:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> In August, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the
> structure of
A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
Google is bonkers. The mudslinging and power grabbing tone of many of these
messages seriously turn me off. The only thing they accomplish is that
people like myself are moving in their emotions from depressed to furious.
He is (as far as I know) flying coach. It was his own project with his own
money. So what is the point?
On 10 March 2016 at 07:19, Ruslan Takayev wrote:
> Gerard, et al
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell
> But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
> Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
radical transparency regarding James's removal and
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:55 AM, SarahSV wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell
> > But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after
> > other.
> > Keegan, we've been told since the
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.
Erik, what do you see as the
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> threats show up in my inbox.
> And this, /this/, is genuinely
Gerard, et al
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
> Google is bonkers.
I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing
machine with a view to
2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :
> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> worth, I did
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and
> > appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body
> > now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the
> > organization that it
In August, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the
structure of WMF grant programs.
Next steps for implementing changes based on the consultation are now
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales
> One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
> The cycle looks like this:
> - the board doesn't share enough, so people are
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December
On 3/9/16 4:29 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> This strikes me as highly significant:
> Frieda surely knew that the vote would be successful, and that she would
> then be faced with serving alongside a colleague who she had publicly
> opposed. I do not know Frieda at all, but this strikes me as an
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
> b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian countries,
> austria even swtizerland any worker (wage earning) is free to join a
> labourunion and about 80% of private sector workers are syndicated , public
> servants are even over 90% syndicated
I don’t know
Great work, Pete, all very interesting and useful. Thanks for dedicating
your time to do this.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> As many of you are aware, it's always been difficult to navigate
> information about the proceedings of the Board of
Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard. The reality is that,
while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
unions to represent the same employees. In many parts of Canada and the
On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in
> this way.
There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one
that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best
placed to give it is in some way
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle wrote:
> Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are free
> to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
but whether that trade union is recognised by the
a) Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees
are free to join a union
b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian
countries, austria even swtizerland any worker (wage earning) is free
to join a labourunion and about 80% of private
You can ask the chapters if you want, but I doubt anyone can imagine a
scenario where the answer is going to be anything but yes.
If a chapter or the WMF were (rather riskily) to refuse to officially
recognize an employee's chosen union then processes such as
On 3/5/16 8:28 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>> In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
>> * Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
> Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather
> abrogating the responsibility of the Board.
Maybe it is better to take a step back at what we're trying to accomplish
exactly, rather than discuss differences in how the labour market works in
different countries (which is quite interesting in itself, but maybe not
quite well placed on this list).
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:31 PM,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales
>> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
>> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
> Jimmy, if you
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in
>> this way.
>There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one
>that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best
Gergő Tisza wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a
>>really amateur mistake.
>Not really if the roof was radioactive, and on fire.
The roof didn't blow off in a storm; it was
I need some help researching the history of the Wikimedia Foundation's
membership status. It's very slow going, and we could use the help of
people who understand nonprofit law, with experience practicing in Florida
a definite plus.
In the meantime, here's one more interesting lead:  This is
I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
This email is not a good faith
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>> release an email?
> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that
Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
Don't be so hasty to rule out Donald.
With Computers coming down in price and Artificial Intelligence programs
steadily improving it should be perfectly possible to train an AI program
with the decision making power needed to make CEO style decisions; Remember
Chess has long had better computer
I believe you better understand how the robbery happened by studying
the way the composition of the Board and WMF's senior functionaries
rotated between 2005 to 2010. You can access these online from the
government websites where WMF filed them
On 3/9/16, Adam Wight
Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving, intentionally,
and if this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it
in a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a founder.
Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have signed
There is not much one can say in response to an email such as that. During
the last month many within the community have come to a similar conclusions
as I did back in Oct following seeing the documents surrounding the Knight
The decision I had pushed for back in November has
I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
IMO, this came to a boil in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal"  and
I'm really not sure how this relates to this thread. If you're
interested in discussing the decision in 06, there's another thread
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:48 PM, David Emrany wrote:
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick
On 05/03/16 19:45, Gordon Joly wrote:
> On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation,
>> they are not even represented.
> Then they should unionise?
Following the arguments that unions would would not fit,
Mail list logo