Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-08-05 Thread Zack McCune
Cheers Bachounda & Yaroslav! On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:47 PM Mohammed Bachounda wrote: > Thanks Zack, > > Hoping that it will boost the project. > > Best > > Le mer. 5 août 2020 à 20:49, Yaroslav Blanter a écrit : > > > Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated. > > > > Best regards > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-08-05 Thread Mohammed Bachounda
Thanks Zack, Hoping that it will boost the project. Best Le mer. 5 août 2020 à 20:49, Yaroslav Blanter a écrit : > Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated. > > Best regards > Yaroslav > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > Heather Walls

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-08-05 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated. Best regards Yaroslav On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28 to > provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process of >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-08-05 Thread Zack McCune
Hello everyone, Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28 to provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process of the Brand Project. We shared milestones up until recent events including the RfC, the open letter, and the survey (but not survey

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-07-17 Thread Todd Allen
And, how might one view it? Todd On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune wrote: > Hello all - > > A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for July > 28th. > > thanks, > > - Zack > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski < > joa...@gmail.com>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-07-17 Thread Zack McCune
Hello all - A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for July 28th. thanks, - Zack On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski wrote: > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better. Best, > João > > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-07-10 Thread João Alexandre Peschanski
Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better. Best, João Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv escreveu: > Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees was > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July 8th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-30 Thread effe iets anders
Thank you Nat, Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much, before an updated process is decided upon. Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the board? I think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread James Salsman
Hi Zack, I filled out a survey request for "The Wiki Foundation". Some of the text of the survey indicated that the legal department thought that there could be a problem with that possibility, but didn't say why, so I asked for the source for the claim I quoted in the survey. How many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it > warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not > argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread
Agreed. Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago, it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate for public education and open knowledge. These personal comments are misleading

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Samuel Klein
Thanks WSC; elegantly put. On survey process: seconding what others have said, if you have gotten ~1000 of a desired 4000 responses, and haven't asked two questions that you realize are essential, yes it is absolutely worth running a new survey w the new options. You can even identify

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
ect, unfortunately they did not > identify a cure. > Cheers, > P > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
-l] Board update on Branding: next steps Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
So far it has been an ongoing process. No obvious reason to expect a change. Cheers, P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dan Szymborski Sent: 28 June 2020 18:13 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gnangarra
It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's the best known identity. It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and run. There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Benjamin Lees
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and > you make that plain in what you say. > This sort of assumption-making about other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and you make that plain in what you say. The problem with bias is that it has consequences in how you approach issues. When Wikipedia "consensus"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Ariel Glenn WMF
Thank you WereSpielChequers for writing so clearly and concisely what I have been struggling to put into words for some days. I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the table, the options

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread Dan Szymborski
Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual process? This information would help people with their planning. On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune wrote: > Dear all, > > We want to confirm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread Dan Szymborski
A survey in which the board's decision cannot possibly be disputed sounds like a perfect fit rather than an unfit one. On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit > for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread WereSpielChequers
Dear Natalia, I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit for purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps Dear all, We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with communities. We invite your perspectives. We are asking that you continue to participate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Zack McCune
Dear all, We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with communities. We invite your perspectives. We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which includes completing the survey,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Paul J. Weiss
"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey now" This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Tito Dutta
Greetings, The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll The early July

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Gnangarra
I recognise and again apologise for confusing the actions of two different Board members that represent the "community". I have directly contacted Nataliia and apologised in person, and offered to do what she requests to make amends for the statement.I had no intention to participate in this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
I tend to agree with Nathan here. I don't know the history of the event described, so I'm not sure whether or not it would be fair to bring up even if it had been Natalia. But certainly, publicly identifying the incorrect person in an accusation is no small thing. Gnangarra, you have given

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Nathan
Considering the context, Gnangarra, I think you owe something a little more substantial. In the midst of tearing Nat down for misdeeds which you yourself acknowledge she didn't personally commit (that of Board miscommunication), and considering your opposition is based on Board directives that she

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread phoebe ayers
I second Jan-Bart; thanks to Nat for this letter. As someone who asked for a board statement, I appreciate this very much. And as someone who has also been on the other side, like Jan-Bart I am aware of how much work a statement like this likely took (and how difficult it is to balance many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Samuel Klein
Brad: this was brilliant, thank you. I have been thinking about how to phrase this all week, and you touched it with a needle. The Foundation's one undelegable role is to protect the community identity through its marks. That is a foundation upon which all else rests. There are many ways we can

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Shabab Mustafa
Thank you, Nataliia, for stepping forward and clearing out some of the confusion. That helps. But not all the confusion gets cleared for me regarding the survey process. For example, X marks Option 1 as 'Disagree' and Option 2 as 'Strongly Disagree'. The score points for 'Disagree' is -1 and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
And there never was any insult or anything close to that, just a misunderstanding, which I believe was clarified. A terça, 23 de jun de 2020, 08:56, revi escreveu: > Hi, > > > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra 작성: > > > > Nat insulted an ESEAP > > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Gnangarra
My apologies for that error On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 15:56, revi wrote: > Hi, > > > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra 작성: > > > > Nat insulted an ESEAP > > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her > > nomination. > > Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein. > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
That one first, and second that it does not even matter. We should appreciate that Nat came up with this statement, which is written in her name, not even as a Board resolution, perfectly knowing that it would not be fully accepted by the active part of the community, and she woull be a target of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread revi
Hi, > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra 작성: > > Nat insulted an ESEAP > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her > nomination. Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Gnangarra
> > (Just reminding that Nat was not elected by the community, as Gnangarra seems to think, but by the affiliates.) Taking responsibility for a gross failure does in fact mean accepting and acknowledging you failed, and then stating what you intend to do to rectify that failing. I know Nat was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
(Just reminding that Nat was not elected by the community, as Gnangarra seems to think, but by the affiliates.) Jan-Bart de Vreede escreveu no dia segunda, 22/06/2020 à(s) 17:26: > Hi Gnangarra > > I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least > because of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Dan Szymborski
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:26 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: > Hi Gnangarra > > I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least > because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of > Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation. > > > Resigning is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Chris Keating
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:26 AM Gnangarra wrote: > > I think its fair to call for you to stand aside since taking full > responsibility for the failing to communicate the Boards actions with the > community and the communities position with the Board. > > Really, no. We want Board members who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi Gnangarra I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation. Quoting from the excellent Wikimedia Board Handbook(1) "WMF is an entrusted steward

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Brad Patrick
From the beginning, WMF vs. Wikipedia has been the dynamic tension between structure and the community. I was one of the strongest advocates of structure. Fundraising and the US-centric approach were the core beliefs for WMF, as a means of guaranteeing survival when survival was a couple of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Gnangarra
This explanation has gone a long way from ensuring this isn't a movement, it's not considering us as a community either, there's no concept of collaboration, nor seeking of consensus, and this is tearing down the Foundation of what made Wikipedia what it is so it's probably not good to use that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi Natalii (and everyone) Thank you for this mail. I know this was hard to write, also knowing that it will be dissected by a lot of people who will read it with a perspective all of their own. Having been on the other side of the fence I know how hard it is to (re)gain trust after mistakes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Please take a step back. The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in a way specifically designed to prevent the community from taking over. The problem with the community is that there is no community as such; there is a movement that includes different communities with different needs and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Bodhisattwa Mandal
Hi Nataliia, Thank you for your statement as the current Chair of WMF Board of Trustees. If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to change its name and if it has the right to do whatever it can, then I can just hope that WMF has considered all the consequences. But I am confused on how affiliates are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Ad Huikeshoven
Thank you Nat. I'm Dutch, and the Dutch are known to be direct, and even I find your extensive statement direct. That was your intent to do. Thanks, I welcome that. I know nearly every other culture would prefer less direct communication. As an employer you have a duty to protect your employees

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Rajeeb Dutta
Greetings, Hope my mail finds you in the best of health and spirit. I like to take the opportunity to thank you for a penning a detailed email with clarification. Yes, we all looking forward for a better possible outcome. Stay healthy and be safe. Best Regards, Rajeeb. (U: Marajozkee) (Sent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-22 Thread Dan Szymborski
OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full responsibility was taken? Is the board changing the degree to which it will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-21 Thread James Salsman
What did the legal department have to say about The Wiki Foundation? Will Ward end up with that one? Does the executive staff and Board have a position on supporting the .ia domain name for the Internet Archive, with the provision that wikiped.ia is assigned to the Foundation in perpetuity? Best

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-21 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi Nat, Thank you very much for managing to put out a statement in a reasonable timeframe, despite the harsh conditions most of all endure now. I can only imagine how hard it has been to get to that. Above all, thank you a lot for the sincerity and for the courage on taking a blame that I'm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-21 Thread Tito Dutta
Greetings, Thanks for working on this response. I thank you and the board for the care you have shown in this email. The upcoming August meeting is going to be an important one, as I understand from the email. We will look forward to its outcomes. There have been concerns that opinions or voices