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 were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey
purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name
community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and
"change but not to a Wikipedia-based term".

It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what
percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on
rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be
made public.

If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to
the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no
change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing
the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline
to slip a little, it would be worth it.

Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Naming_FAQ#Were_there_other_naming_convention_proposals_that_did_not_end_up_in_the_survey?_Why_were_they_eliminated
?

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 than
> find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
>
> "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
> not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
> WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
> harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
> my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
> does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
> change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> have
> > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> >
> > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> more
> > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> survey
> > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> to
> > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> on
> > whether to adopt them.
> >
> > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> >
> > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> review
> > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> > briefing on discussions happening;
> >
> > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > posted publicly after the meeting;
> >
> > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> stop,
> > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> >
> > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> about
> > the Brand project.
> >
> > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> renaming
> > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> position
> > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> > some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> > communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
> >
> > Stay safe,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to