Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread Austin Hair
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > It is deeply unsettling to have my WHAT? I confirmed no such thing, and > your misrepresentations do you no favors. > > One thing I have learned over the last few years is that it is impossible > to have a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread Philippe Beaudette
It is deeply unsettling to have my WHAT? I confirmed no such thing, and your misrepresentations do you no favors. One thing I have learned over the last few years is that it is impossible to have a conversation in a spirit of openness when one party so wildly misrepresents the statements of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread David Emrany
Philippe There is no public evidence of your misleading statements re years of careful planning.and execution. What there is public evidence of is that the WMF has systematically evaded its enforcement responsibilities under the Terms of Use. To cite 1 specific instance, Sue Gardner was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread Chris Sherlock
On 3 Mar 2016, at 3:45 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > The message below went without response on the list, but there was a > significant off-list response. > > Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to > praise this one, but missed its main

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be > completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in > stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread
Hi Pete, if Jimmy Wales' behaviour has degenerated to the level of making personal attacks off-list while posting contradictory soft soap on-list (such as not being against James rerunning, and he did not want to vote James off the board but this was everyone else on the WMF board that forced his

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread Kevin Smith
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > My only feedback is that information is *really* scattered. I’m finding it > hard to follow what is going on, not that this should be a concern as I’m > not doing the work. It might be nice to have a slightly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
The message below went without response on the list, but there was a significant off-list response. Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to praise this one, but missed its main points: * There was no mention of professional mediation or facilitation to work

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread Chris Sherlock
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:24 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> You can tell me the scope was intended to be only for Wikimedia projects, >> but that isn't what is said in that grant application. That document as it >> stands literally states that it is to be an Internet search

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread Philippe Beaudette
Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole, not to that amendment alone. And I agree with him, for the record. Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work took

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
Dave, you're simply mistaken. The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany wrote: > Dear Coren > > I think you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread Kevin Smith
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > I'm just going to quote directly from the Grant application here [1]: > > > Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media, > news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread David Emrany
Dear Coren I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014 (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue on 1 June 2014. I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote: > What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term > some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR > socking and on-wiki abuses could come out. I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread David Emrany
I was subliminally aware of your assist in Nemo's protest to Lila. What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR socking and on-wiki abuses could come out. 1) WIKI-PR (250 sock accounts) 2) Orange

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-03-01 Thread Erik Moeller
2016-02-29 23:19 GMT-08:00 David Emrany : > so reading your email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the > Stanton Foundation fiasco ? [1] > > "The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the > future, any grants that are not unrestricted will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread David Emrany
Dear Erik, Wikimovement veterans recall your invaluable assistance in arranging the 3 million grant from the Sloan Foundation to WMF, so reading your email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the Stanton Foundation fiasco ? [1] "The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Chris Sherlock
On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:00 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > 2016-02-29 19:24 GMT-08:00 Chris Sherlock : > >> With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure how could come to the conclusion >> that general >> Internet search was not a core component of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Erik Moeller
2016-02-29 19:24 GMT-08:00 Chris Sherlock : > With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure how could come to the conclusion > that general > Internet search was not a core component of the Knowledge Engine. It's important to remember that this is a $250K grant, with a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Chris Sherlock
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 11:12 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > > I think some people aren't realizing the difference between the leaked > presentation (which outlined a general search engine) and the actual grant. > The former was just an idea, while the latter is official. By my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Kevin Gorman
The thing that disturbs me more than anything else about a lot of recent events is the utter lack of transparency related to a lot of recent changes. To pick a tangential topic: WMF now has six employees dedicated to foundations and major gifts. I don't mean general fundraising employees, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Kevin, Those were quotes from the current WMF documentation explaining the Discovery project and its underlying strategy. I linked the sources in my post. Federated open data sources and Kindle are mentioned here: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADiscovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf=9

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Kevin Smith
I think some people aren't realizing the difference between the leaked presentation (which outlined a general search engine) and the actual grant. The former was just an idea, while the latter is official. By my reading, the grant clearly is NOT for a general internet search engine, although it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread SarahSV
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > James had gotten, from somewhere, the idea that there really was a > secret project to build a Google-competing search engine. We had a > discussion where I told him that wasn't right. We had further >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Chris Sherlock
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 3:09 AM, Nathan wrote: > > Jimmy - the limit is a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month. If someone goes > well over you might get an e-mail from Austin or another moderator to cut > back, but otherwise there is no need to ask for an exception. > > Chris

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Andreas Kolbe > wrote: > > > Here is what I don't understand: both Dariusz and James have said that > they > > pushed hard for transparency and community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Nathan
Jimmy - the limit is a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month. If someone goes well over you might get an e-mail from Austin or another moderator to cut back, but otherwise there is no need to ask for an exception. Chris Sherlock - It is certainly not "unambiguous" what qualifies in that statute as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Here is what I don't understand: both Dariusz and James have said that they > pushed hard for transparency and community engagement about the project at > that time, and expressed concern that there hadn't been any. Do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Jimmy Wales
(People keep mentioning a post limit, and I'm sure I'm going to hit it. I'll see if someone can give me a temporary exception, but I also wanted to warn that I'm in back to back meetings for the next 3 days and intend to deliberately go quiet because of that. In the evenings, I plan to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > And there are things in the FAQs even today, like the plans for "public > curation or relevance",[1][2] that are of material interest to volunteers, > because they are the ones envisaged to be doing that work. > That

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > We went back and forth in pleasant emails discussing the situation and > as a part of that I said: "I am always in favor of more community > consultation." I went on to discuss a bit that I didn't think we were > at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Chris Sherlock
On 1 Mar 2016, at 2:00 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > On 2/29/16 6:46 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: >> Unfortunately though, the WMF very much did have internal documents >> that were positioning the WMF into building a search engine. In fact, >> it was a grand idea. But one

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Jimmy Wales
On 2/29/16 6:46 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > Unfortunately though, the WMF very much did have internal documents > that were positioning the WMF into building a search engine. In fact, > it was a grand idea. But one that was done in secret. James was not > wrong, and he wasn’t lying. You may not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread pajz
On 29 February 2016 at 06:18, SarahSV wrote: > Everything Doc James has said so far appears to have been correct, based on > the information we have. > Ha, like those "Oh, I have done nothing wrong and no have no idea why I was removed" messages we heard for two weeks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Chris Sherlock
On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:36 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > In mid-October, before he emailed the board, James wrote me with a huge > misconception - that we had a secret project to build a Google competing > search engine. Of course we didn't have such a project We had a few >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Jimmy Wales
On 2/29/16 2:42 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Pete, > Can you help me figure out how Jimmy and the board could have "assumed" > that there was community discussion and consultation about the Knowledge > Engine project when James Heilman > > 1. had started a board discussion in mid-October

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Pete, According to his Signpost piece three weeks ago[1], James Heilman emailed the board in mid-October about the Knight Foundation grant to warn the board, and I quote – *"4) There is a serious lack of transparency around this new "sister project". This has not been discussed with our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this part: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread James Heilman
Per these questions: 1. When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there was going to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF? No one before I left the meeting suggested we come out with a joint statement or that we prepare a joint statement. 2. If so, did anyone ask

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > > Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In > > particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel > > that his actions were wrong,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Anthony Cole
Jimmy's response on Sunday 28 February: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html "... There are board discussions ongoing about more information being released - and I hope those are productive. Within a few days time, I'll know whether it's ok for me to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, SarahSV wrote: > Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc > James telling him why he had been removed? > > ​Jimmy, I see you responded to this in another thread, so I apologize for the repetition. Thank you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Jimmy Wales
On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > Yes, but you need to be more clear. At the risk of playing semantic > games, your exact words here are “efforts underway *by Patricio* to > *get James to agree* to a joint statement. > > You are implying here that the effort was all on Patricio’s side,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > No, this is wrong. I think things should be much more transparent at > the WMF generally, and with the board in particular. > Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc James telling

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Chris Sherlock
Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote. > On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list: > > > >> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by > >> Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Jimmy Wales
Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote. On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list: > >> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by >> Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an >> encouragement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its > business > > in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed, > > then that is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Jimmy Wales
On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its business > in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed, > then that is because Jimmy Wales, more than anyone else, likes it that way. No, this is wrong. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Erik, I have too many times read appeals to do something later, because now is not a good time, or to move discussion to a sub-page, because it's too big a topic, and so forth. Invariably the result was that *nothing ever happened*. Chris Sherlock is absolutely right that the board's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-28 Thread Chris Sherlock
On 28 Feb 2016, at 6:51 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > Chris, > > It's good to read you here and on WW. I think you're raising > legitimate points that others have also sought progress on. I would > just suggest one thing. Right now the Wikimedia Foundation is going > through

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-27 Thread Erik Moeller
Chris, It's good to read you here and on WW. I think you're raising legitimate points that others have also sought progress on. I would just suggest one thing. Right now the Wikimedia Foundation is going through an ED transition, impacting nearly 300 staff members most immediately. The Board's