I've been thinking more about this issue since yesterday.
I should correct myself and say that my comment about "the Board are often
not particularly responsive" now appears to be a little outdated, I also
should acknowledge that some Board members are more responsive than others
rather than paint
age From: Pine W
> > Date: 7/14/17 11:31 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates]
> > June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
> > Hi WMF folks,
> >
>
Hoi,
I have said before that we spend our money not equally over our audience.
Less than 50 % of our traffic is English Wikipedia and less than 40% of the
world population speak English well enough. Consequently we spend too much
on English.
It is stupid to suggest that we should defund our curren
Gerard,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:39 PM, you wrote:
Arguably we do not spend enough, we could achieve more.
>
I would say that it is about spending money differently, not just more.
However, here are some things that one could achieve for a modest $2.5M, as
suggested in a thread on this list in
silence here is getting to be a point of concern.
> > Pine
> > Original message From: Pine W
> > Date: 7/14/17 11:31 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates]
> > June 23:
Wikimedia Mailing List <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates]
> June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
> Hi WMF folks,
>
> I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On We
ikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June
23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
Hi WMF folks,
I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
Pine
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wrote:
Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty with
writing a
Hi WMF folks,
I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
Pine
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
> with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
>
> Rather than try to address multiple topics at
Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
will help to keep the conversation focused and
I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
to sen
sday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia
> movement strategy process (#19)
>
> >By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
> >initially,
>
> Please don't
] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement
strategy process (#19)
>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
>initially,
Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their
response was quite clear.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:2
>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,
Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
their response was quite clear.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors
wrote:
> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and
Anna
Thank you for that and for writing it on a Sunday. Unfortunately I missed
it originally in the two dozen messages in this thread. You mention the
names of individuals outside the US who are helping and that is good to
see. By "consultants" I meant the companies hired to help you, such as
L
Greg and Anna
This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was
happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (t
Pine,
A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As
Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are
indeed a number of financial oversights.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the
Board app
You're right, it is way too much weight to assign to it. It's a perfectly
reasonable statement that can be read as "The fact that we are under budget
is a sign that our normal fiscal controls are working" so I'm baffled that
it is being interpreted as "We don't care what we spend money on at all a
Pine, Weren't you the person who pushed for months consult and interview
and design when I wanted to make mediawiki colors 5% brighter? How come
deciding on future of Wikimedia movement is too expensive?
Best
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Rogol Domedonfors
wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Budget control
Robert,
Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot
of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of m
What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to
believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What
measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
regards t
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> >> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >
Hi Anna,
>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
>
>We've
On 27 June 2017 at 04:33, Anna Stillwell wrote:
...
>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much
Hoi,
Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the
challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue
of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its
attention goes?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stil
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wrote:
> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> conversation.
>
> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would
> like to hear from Katherine (or someone els
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
* How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from wha
> When you look at the
> team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
support
> in standards.
>
I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
that view.
Thank you both, but.
Gerard,
In line.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
Everyt
Rogol,
The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
- organized groups
- on-wiki
- experts
- new voices
I’d like to introduce this list
Hoi,
I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution. When you look at the
team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
Gerard,
Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
"beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
multiplicity of what we already are
Hoi,
You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did
not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English
Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not
care and do not need to care".
What I am saying is that English Wiki
I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects
On
Hoi,
Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
seriously.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedo
This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu
wrote:
> Hej,
>
> Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-)
> is also that the initiatives
Hej,
Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-) is
also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are under
served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, but this
should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that la
Hoi,
The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
t
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu wrote:
> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W :
> > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> who
> > are not involved with affiliates?
>
>
>
> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> most activ
2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W :
> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who
> are not involved with affiliates?
Hi Pine,
I would like to give my view on this since extending the deadlines was
the main feedback that I gave after the last phase of the
consultat
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for the update.
My impression is that the strategy process is time intensive for the staff
and the consultants involved, and I am concerned that extending the
timeline like this will result in significant extra costs on top of what
was already understood to be an expensive pr
40 matches
Mail list logo
