Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not translate but I do care. What I personally do is include data in a
structured manner. I do it for things I more or less care about.. It does
include awards, educated at, employed by, Ottoman history, Africa,
science.. The point in what I do is that much of these structures can be
represented in any and all languages, it is just a matter of adding labels.

People may think that I do not like Wikipedia but I do. People may think
that I do not like the WMF but I do. It is just that we could do better.
The best of us are all united in this. I also think that most of us do not
need to be told what to work on. For me the WMF is an enabler. It makes
things possible. I do not mind them to do different things from what I want
as long as I can do what I care about. I just want them to understand their
own/our bias.

As to the community, what community? Also opinions are a dime a dozen. More
relevant are the underpinning arguments and truly shelve those opinions
when we are done with these arguments.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 12:50, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > Hi GerardM,
> >
> > Indeed!
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual.
> We
> > want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> > have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> > happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> > localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> > order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> > survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> > Russian and Spanish.
>
>
> To be perfectly honest, while I'm not a professional translator, it can't
> certainly can't take that many hours of work to translate "the board is
> going to pick whatever name they want, irrespective of anything the
> communities offer" into many languages.
>
> Seriously, why all the theater? The board cared little for how the
> community felt about the initial name change proposal, code of conduct, and
> crammed the 2030 project so aggressively down the throats of the community
> that even the most deluded as to the state of affairs saw it was pointless
> to offer any additional feedback. There's still no transparency for board
> conflicts-of-interest during the Fram incident or the capricious and
> arbitrary extension of the term of community board seats.
>
> Every single person reading this knows that the board is going to do
> whatever it wants anyway, so why insult the community with the pretense
> that any opinions of the community actually matter?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Dan Szymborski]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi GerardM,
>
> Indeed!
>
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual. We
> want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> Russian and Spanish.


To be perfectly honest, while I'm not a professional translator, it can't
certainly can't take that many hours of work to translate "the board is
going to pick whatever name they want, irrespective of anything the
communities offer" into many languages.

Seriously, why all the theater? The board cared little for how the
community felt about the initial name change proposal, code of conduct, and
crammed the 2030 project so aggressively down the throats of the community
that even the most deluded as to the state of affairs saw it was pointless
to offer any additional feedback. There's still no transparency for board
conflicts-of-interest during the Fram incident or the capricious and
arbitrary extension of the term of community board seats.

Every single person reading this knows that the board is going to do
whatever it wants anyway, so why insult the community with the pretense
that any opinions of the community actually matter?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin]

FYI: I volunteer interpreting Wikimedia broadcasts live into Russian whenever I 
know and available, usually via parallel Facebook Messenger call - announcing 
this on Wikimedia Languages of Russia Facebook group & then uploading the 
recording in various places - like 
https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/File:Ru-Wiki4HumanRights-Webinar.oga for June 2 
event with Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights

If you ever use Zoom-casts in webinar mode, there's a good interface for 
choosing desired interpretation channel (worked in a conferece with 7 languages 
with no problems, ready to share experience if Wikimedia will go multilingual 
during live events).
By default, principle audio goes at about 20%, chosen interpretation language 
at ~80%.

regards,
farhad

-- 
Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / 
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / Wikidata:Q34036417


09.06.2020, 01:58, "Zack McCune" :
> Hi GerardM,
>
> Indeed!
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual. We
> want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> Russian and Spanish. All materials will also be made available on Meta-Wiki
> so that volunteers can translate to other languages. Our team will be
> analyzing survey responses and discussion themes in all languages.
>
> We look forward to talking names with all parts of the movement.
>
> Best,
>
> Zack
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:11 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hoi,
>>  How will you cope in other languages, other scripts. Is engaging all over
>>  the world NOT in English a consideration>
>>  Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>>  On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 05:34, Zack McCune  wrote:
>>
>>  > Hi Tito -
>>  >
>>  > Your observation is fair and welcome. The project team will update the
>>  > timeline on Meta-Wiki to reflect the latest rescheduling and our
>>  relaunched
>>  > consultations.
>>  >
>>  > The priority is on completing the collaborative design activities of the
>>  > project (naming, design, and style guides) in time for the birthday in
>>  > January. The process of adoption will follow the completion of this work,
>>  > so it too will be adjusted in the timeline.
>>  >
>>  > The project team is working to keep this timeline as accurate as we can
>>  > amidst much global uncertainty, so I want to be the first to acknowledge
>>  > that timing will likely remain at the monthly estimate level and may
>>  > further change.
>>  >
>>  > Thanks,
>>  >
>>  > - Zack
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>>  >
>>  > > With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in
>>  > case
>>  > > it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith):
>>  > > The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms
>>  > its
>>  > > support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the
>>  > > movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the
>>  > Foundation
>>  > > to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
>>  > > – what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021?
>>  > > I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On
>>  Meta-Wiki
>>  > > the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational
>>  > > implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for
>>  > > affiliates.
>>  > > I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in
>>  > > naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of
>>  > > Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with
>>  > direct
>>  > > attention.
>>  > > Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process?
>>  > > Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there
>>  was
>>  > > always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no".
>>  > > Sincerely,
>>  > > User:Titodutta
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > [1]
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  
>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
>>  > > [2]
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership)
>>  > >
>>  > > Thanks
>>  > > Tito Dutta
>>  > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
>>  > remind
>>  > > me over email or phone call.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>>  > >
>>  > > > Hello,
>>  > > > From the resolution page (
>>  > > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Zack McCune]

Hi GerardM,

Indeed!


As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual. We
want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
Russian and Spanish. All materials will also be made available on Meta-Wiki
so that volunteers can translate to other languages. Our team will be
analyzing survey responses and discussion themes in all languages.

We look forward to talking names with all parts of the movement.

Best,

Zack


On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:11 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> How will you cope in other languages, other scripts. Is engaging all over
> the world NOT in English a consideration>
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 05:34, Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > Hi Tito -
> >
> > Your observation is fair and welcome. The project team will update the
> > timeline on Meta-Wiki to reflect the latest rescheduling and our
> relaunched
> > consultations.
> >
> > The priority is on completing the collaborative design activities of the
> > project (naming, design, and style guides) in time for the birthday in
> > January. The process of adoption will follow the completion of this work,
> > so it too will be adjusted in the timeline.
> >
> > The project team is working to keep this timeline as accurate as we can
> > amidst much global uncertainty, so I want to be the first to acknowledge
> > that timing will likely remain at the monthly estimate level and may
> > further change.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Zack
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in
> > case
> > > it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith):
> > > The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms
> > its
> > > support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the
> > > movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the
> > Foundation
> > > to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > > – what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021?
> > > I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On
> Meta-Wiki
> > > the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational
> > > implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for
> > > affiliates.
> > > I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in
> > > naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of
> > > Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with
> > direct
> > > attention.
> > > Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process?
> > > Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there
> was
> > > always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no".
> > > Sincerely,
> > > User:Titodutta
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > remind
> > > me over email or phone call.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > From the resolution page (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > > > :
> > > > "... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by
> > > > Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > > > — That is 15 January 2021. Interesting.
> > > > It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options.
> > > > Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need
> more
> > > > than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. .
> > > > Thanks
> > > > User:Titodutta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to
> discuss
> > > >> names
> > > >> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning
> 16
> > > >> June.
> > > >> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:
> > > >>
> > > >> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the
> > Board
> > > >> of
> > > >> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three
> > > >> naming
> > > >> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How will you cope in other languages, other scripts. Is engaging all over
the world NOT in English a consideration>
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 05:34, Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi Tito -
>
> Your observation is fair and welcome. The project team will update the
> timeline on Meta-Wiki to reflect the latest rescheduling and our relaunched
> consultations.
>
> The priority is on completing the collaborative design activities of the
> project (naming, design, and style guides) in time for the birthday in
> January. The process of adoption will follow the completion of this work,
> so it too will be adjusted in the timeline.
>
> The project team is working to keep this timeline as accurate as we can
> amidst much global uncertainty, so I want to be the first to acknowledge
> that timing will likely remain at the monthly estimate level and may
> further change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Zack
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in
> case
> > it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith):
> > The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms
> its
> > support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the
> > movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the
> Foundation
> > to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > – what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021?
> > I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On Meta-Wiki
> > the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational
> > implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for
> > affiliates.
> > I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in
> > naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of
> > Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with
> direct
> > attention.
> > Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process?
> > Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there was
> > always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no".
> > Sincerely,
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tito Dutta
> > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> remind
> > me over email or phone call.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > From the resolution page (
> > >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > > :
> > > "... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by
> > > Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > > — That is 15 January 2021. Interesting.
> > > It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options.
> > > Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need more
> > > than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. .
> > > Thanks
> > > User:Titodutta
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss
> > >> names
> > >> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16
> > >> June.
> > >> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:
> > >>
> > >> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the
> Board
> > >> of
> > >> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three
> > >> naming
> > >> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.
> > >>
> > >> The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted
> > >> various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications
> > of
> > >> different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to
> act
> > >> as
> > >> compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing
> > and
> > >> ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the
> > >> movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention
> proposals
> > >> centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an
> open
> > >> response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals.
> > We
> > >> feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals,
> > while
> > >> we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas  and are committed to
> > >> reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.
> > >>
> > >> While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures
> > centered
> > >> entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially
> > >> responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Zack McCune]

Hi Tito -

Your observation is fair and welcome. The project team will update the
timeline on Meta-Wiki to reflect the latest rescheduling and our relaunched
consultations.

The priority is on completing the collaborative design activities of the
project (naming, design, and style guides) in time for the birthday in
January. The process of adoption will follow the completion of this work,
so it too will be adjusted in the timeline.

The project team is working to keep this timeline as accurate as we can
amidst much global uncertainty, so I want to be the first to acknowledge
that timing will likely remain at the monthly estimate level and may
further change.

Thanks,

- Zack

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in case
> it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith):
> The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms its
> support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the
> movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the Foundation
> to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> – what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021?
> I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On Meta-Wiki
> the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational
> implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for
> affiliates.
> I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in
> naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of
> Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with direct
> attention.
> Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process?
> Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there was
> always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no".
> Sincerely,
> User:Titodutta
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership)
>
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
> Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> me over email or phone call.
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > From the resolution page (
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > :
> > "... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by
> > Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > — That is 15 January 2021. Interesting.
> > It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options.
> > Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need more
> > than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. .
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss
> >> names
> >> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16
> >> June.
> >> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:
> >>
> >> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the Board
> >> of
> >> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three
> >> naming
> >> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.
> >>
> >> The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted
> >> various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications
> of
> >> different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to act
> >> as
> >> compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing
> and
> >> ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the
> >> movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention proposals
> >> centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an open
> >> response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals.
> We
> >> feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals,
> while
> >> we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas  and are committed to
> >> reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.
> >>
> >> While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures
> centered
> >> entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially
> >> responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which “Wiki” can be used as
> >> part of movement naming. We know there will be questions around this,
> and
> >> look forward to discussing more in detail during the upcoming live
> >> presentation.
> >>
> >> ***Join us for the live presentation [2] of the three Naming Convention
> >> Proposals on 16 June at 15:00 UTC.***
> >>
> >> We will present the various options that were considered, the risks and
> >> rewards of each, and how the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Tito Dutta]

With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in case
it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith):
The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms its
support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the
movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the Foundation
to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
– what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021?
I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On Meta-Wiki
the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational
implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for
affiliates.
I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in
naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of
Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with direct
attention.
Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process?
Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there was
always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no".
Sincerely,
User:Titodutta


[1]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership)

Thanks
Tito Dutta
Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
me over email or phone call.


On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Hello,
> From the resolution page (
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> :
> "... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by
> Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> — That is 15 January 2021. Interesting.
> It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options.
> Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need more
> than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. .
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune  wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss
>> names
>> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16
>> June.
>> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:
>>
>> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the Board
>> of
>> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three
>> naming
>> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.
>>
>> The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted
>> various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications of
>> different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to act
>> as
>> compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing and
>> ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the
>> movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention proposals
>> centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an open
>> response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals.  We
>> feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals, while
>> we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas  and are committed to
>> reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.
>>
>> While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures centered
>> entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially
>> responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which “Wiki” can be used as
>> part of movement naming. We know there will be questions around this, and
>> look forward to discussing more in detail during the upcoming live
>> presentation.
>>
>> ***Join us for the live presentation [2] of the three Naming Convention
>> Proposals on 16 June at 15:00 UTC.***
>>
>> We will present the various options that were considered, the risks and
>> rewards of each, and how the process arrived at the three options for
>> review.
>>
>> As previously planned, the movement-wide review to follow will be
>> multilingual and will rely on surveys for individual contributors,
>> affiliates, and Foundation depts, as well as open discussion on Meta-Wiki,
>> from 16 June to 30 June. The two weeks of feedback will help to remove,
>> refine and recombine elements from the proposals into a single,
>> synthesized
>> proposal.
>>
>> We look forward to talking names with you soon.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> - Zack & the Brand Project Team
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:12 PM Heather Walls 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I wanted to quickly follow up and thank you for being patient.
>> >
>> > Zack, Essie, Samir, Elena, and the entire project team was eager,
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Tito Dutta]

Hello,
From the resolution page (
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
:
"... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by
Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
— That is 15 January 2021. Interesting.
It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options.
Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need more
than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. .
Thanks
User:Titodutta


On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss names
> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16 June.
> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:
>
> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the Board of
> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three naming
> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.
>
> The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted
> various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications of
> different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to act as
> compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing and
> ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the
> movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention proposals
> centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an open
> response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals.  We
> feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals, while
> we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas  and are committed to
> reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.
>
> While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures centered
> entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially
> responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which “Wiki” can be used as
> part of movement naming. We know there will be questions around this, and
> look forward to discussing more in detail during the upcoming live
> presentation.
>
> ***Join us for the live presentation [2] of the three Naming Convention
> Proposals on 16 June at 15:00 UTC.***
>
> We will present the various options that were considered, the risks and
> rewards of each, and how the process arrived at the three options for
> review.
>
> As previously planned, the movement-wide review to follow will be
> multilingual and will rely on surveys for individual contributors,
> affiliates, and Foundation depts, as well as open discussion on Meta-Wiki,
> from 16 June to 30 June. The two weeks of feedback will help to remove,
> refine and recombine elements from the proposals into a single, synthesized
> proposal.
>
> We look forward to talking names with you soon.
>
> Best,
>
> - Zack & the Brand Project Team
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:12 PM Heather Walls 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wanted to quickly follow up and thank you for being patient.
> >
> > Zack, Essie, Samir, Elena, and the entire project team was eager, working
> > very very hard, and prepared to share the planned Naming Convention
> > Proposals this week. Our colleagues across the Foundation, particularly
> in
> > Legal, were also tightly involved in this project that is both important
> > and close to our hearts. Rescheduling feels a bit disappointing to us
> all,
> > but we are excited at the chance for us to add more to the future review,
> > and to set up a stronger discussion across our Movement about the limits
> > and possibilities of new naming systems.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Heather
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:34 AM Zack McCune 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone-
> > >
> > > Today, we are rescheduling the Naming Convention Proposal community
> > review
> > > planned for May 7 - 21, including tomorrow's live presentation. This
> > > critical part of the Movement Brand Project is designed to share and
> > > review compelling,
> > > unifying naming proposals that would sustain our free knowledge mission
> > far
> > > into the future. [1]
> > >
> > > We are incredibly excited to talk NAMES with our communities. We know
> how
> > > important naming is to the Movement, and together we’ve made
> considerable
> > > progress on options that would allow us to invite and inspire people to
> > > join us. People join the movements that move them, and we want our
> Naming
> > > Convention Proposals to be both functional and appealing.
> > >
> > > We are particularly interested in “Wiki” as a potential direction,
> often
> > > suggested by the community and widely used in our Movement. However,
> > there
> > > are significant practical issues with "Wiki" due to the relevant
> > trademark
> > > landscape.  We do not want to present to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Zack McCune]

Hi everyone,

As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss names
as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16 June.
Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:

After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the Board of
Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three naming
convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.

The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted
various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications of
different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to act as
compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing and
ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the
movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention proposals
centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an open
response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals.  We
feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals, while
we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas  and are committed to
reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.

While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures centered
entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially
responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which “Wiki” can be used as
part of movement naming. We know there will be questions around this, and
look forward to discussing more in detail during the upcoming live
presentation.

***Join us for the live presentation [2] of the three Naming Convention
Proposals on 16 June at 15:00 UTC.***

We will present the various options that were considered, the risks and
rewards of each, and how the process arrived at the three options for
review.

As previously planned, the movement-wide review to follow will be
multilingual and will rely on surveys for individual contributors,
affiliates, and Foundation depts, as well as open discussion on Meta-Wiki,
from 16 June to 30 June. The two weeks of feedback will help to remove,
refine and recombine elements from the proposals into a single, synthesized
proposal.

We look forward to talking names with you soon.

Best,

- Zack & the Brand Project Team


[1]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:12 PM Heather Walls  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to quickly follow up and thank you for being patient.
>
> Zack, Essie, Samir, Elena, and the entire project team was eager, working
> very very hard, and prepared to share the planned Naming Convention
> Proposals this week. Our colleagues across the Foundation, particularly in
> Legal, were also tightly involved in this project that is both important
> and close to our hearts. Rescheduling feels a bit disappointing to us all,
> but we are excited at the chance for us to add more to the future review,
> and to set up a stronger discussion across our Movement about the limits
> and possibilities of new naming systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Heather
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:34 AM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone-
> >
> > Today, we are rescheduling the Naming Convention Proposal community
> review
> > planned for May 7 - 21, including tomorrow's live presentation. This
> > critical part of the Movement Brand Project is designed to share and
> > review compelling,
> > unifying naming proposals that would sustain our free knowledge mission
> far
> > into the future. [1]
> >
> > We are incredibly excited to talk NAMES with our communities. We know how
> > important naming is to the Movement, and together we’ve made considerable
> > progress on options that would allow us to invite and inspire people to
> > join us. People join the movements that move them, and we want our Naming
> > Convention Proposals to be both functional and appealing.
> >
> > We are particularly interested in “Wiki” as a potential direction, often
> > suggested by the community and widely used in our Movement. However,
> there
> > are significant practical issues with "Wiki" due to the relevant
> trademark
> > landscape.  We do not want to present to you an option that we could not
> > make work. The fastest thing to do would be to remove it from the
> > possibilities, but we hear your preferences and we don’t want to do that.
> > Instead, we need more time to expand the research and risk evaluation
> with
> > our Legal team and the Board to fully understand what opportunities we
> > have.
> >
> > We recognize that changing timing may appear to avoid a necessary and
> > promised discussion. Nothing could be further from our intentions. We
> want
> > to meet our commitment to you to present the best options based on the
> > conversations we’ve had so far, instead of a more limited set of options
> > that we had to narrow in order to meet our deadline. We want to have more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Heather Walls]

Hi all,

I wanted to quickly follow up and thank you for being patient.

Zack, Essie, Samir, Elena, and the entire project team was eager, working
very very hard, and prepared to share the planned Naming Convention
Proposals this week. Our colleagues across the Foundation, particularly in
Legal, were also tightly involved in this project that is both important
and close to our hearts. Rescheduling feels a bit disappointing to us all,
but we are excited at the chance for us to add more to the future review,
and to set up a stronger discussion across our Movement about the limits
and possibilities of new naming systems.

Thanks,
Heather


On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:34 AM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi everyone-
>
> Today, we are rescheduling the Naming Convention Proposal community review
> planned for May 7 - 21, including tomorrow's live presentation. This
> critical part of the Movement Brand Project is designed to share and
> review compelling,
> unifying naming proposals that would sustain our free knowledge mission far
> into the future. [1]
>
> We are incredibly excited to talk NAMES with our communities. We know how
> important naming is to the Movement, and together we’ve made considerable
> progress on options that would allow us to invite and inspire people to
> join us. People join the movements that move them, and we want our Naming
> Convention Proposals to be both functional and appealing.
>
> We are particularly interested in “Wiki” as a potential direction, often
> suggested by the community and widely used in our Movement. However, there
> are significant practical issues with "Wiki" due to the relevant trademark
> landscape.  We do not want to present to you an option that we could not
> make work. The fastest thing to do would be to remove it from the
> possibilities, but we hear your preferences and we don’t want to do that.
> Instead, we need more time to expand the research and risk evaluation with
> our Legal team and the Board to fully understand what opportunities we
> have.
>
> We recognize that changing timing may appear to avoid a necessary and
> promised discussion. Nothing could be further from our intentions. We want
> to meet our commitment to you to present the best options based on the
> conversations we’ve had so far, instead of a more limited set of options
> that we had to narrow in order to meet our deadline. We want to have more
> exploration and clarity on the risks, costs, and rewards of naming changes
> to share with you at this critical phase.
>
> Collaborating with our Legal team and the Board, we will work to have more
> details to share with you soon. The Project Team will meet with the Board
> of Trustees during their May 22nd summit, and will follow up as soon as we
> can after.
>
> Yours in branding,
>
> - Zack, Essie, Elena, Samir, Rupika and the entire Brand Project team
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> --
>
> Zack McCune (he/him)
>
> Director of Brand
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 

Heather Walls

Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,