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
> >
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
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
>
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
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>
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
-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
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
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,
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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
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
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,
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
>
>
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
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
>
> (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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
