Jennifer, I would like to comment on the search and requirement criteria. In particular, I'd like to know whether the Foundation is interested in reinforcing their privacy infrastructure, and whether that is more or less important than being able to provide personally identifiable information to the several researchers worldwide under nondisclosure agreements. And whether some kind of a fuzzing middle ground is interesting to the Foundation? I'd like to know whether the Foundation wants to stay with PHP long term, or explore alternatives before deciding whether they do. What is our technical strategy to combat censorship in Turkey and China? Are we ever going to support IPFS with more than just dumps? What is the status of the Encrypted-SNI project and how many headcount do we think we need and what kind of budget is there for it? I'd like to know what kind of commitment the Foundation wants to open source hardware, e.g. www.opencompute.org servers, or if we're just going to stay with closed source proprietary technology forever? I'd like to know what the technology goals are. Plenty of Foundation technology projects look like they are close to wrapping up or have already transitioned into support mode. Is the Community Wishlist the sole source of new technology efforts? What is the future of the Tool Labs? Are any of the tools that have fallen into disrepair (e.g., Categorder which sorts the WP:BACKLOG categories by pageviews on enwiki) ever going to be fixed? Is Wikiversity going to get a Course Management System? Is Wiktionary going to get a pronunciation tutor? What is the Foundation looking for in a CTO to address these issues? How are they looking for them? Is there a short list? Will the community get a chance to comment on the candidates? Who is performing the search? What criteria are they using? How much money is being offered? Are we competitive with other top-ten website CTO compensation? Is the Foundation still committed to paying competitive SF-livable salaries for all employees? I would love to know any of this far more than anything about branding. Best regards, Jim On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:55 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <jennifer.pryorsummers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Jennifer, I would be happy if the Foundation was doing anything to involve the community in the process. We are constantly told to get involved, but if the search process isn't open, how are we supposed to? I plead guilty, I want privacy and all the other questions I raised to be part of the CTO search process, but they are hardly my pet notions, and again, I'd gladly abstain if the community was made part of this process. There was one item on the list you could call my pet, since it has been the source of 98% of my income for the past eight years, but it wasn't either of the two you guessed. Here is enumerated list, in hopes that this makes it easier. Is the Foundation looking for a CTO who can help: (1) reinforcing their privacy infrastructure; (2) moving away from providing personally identifiable information to the dozens of researchers worldwide under nondisclosure agreements; (3) finding a fuzzing middle ground to provide approximate but non- personally identyding readership log information; (4) explore alternatives to staying with PHP long term; (5) build a strategy to combat censorship in Turkey and China; (6) support IPFS with more than just dumps; (7) execute on the industry-wide Encrypted-SNI project with devoted headcount and budget; (8) commit to open source hardware, e.g. www.opencompute.org servers; (9) ramp up Community Wishlist implementation as long term Foundation technology supporters wrap up or transition to support mode; (10) fix tools that have fallen into disrepair (e.g., Categorder which sorts the WP:BACKLOG categories by pageviews on enwiki) (11) produce a Course Management System for Wikiversity; (12) produce a pronunciation tutor for Wiktionary; (13) remain competitive with other top-ten website compensation by paying SF-livable salaries; and what search criteria are they using to find candidates that can? Best regards, Jim On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <jennifer.pryorsummers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy to have"and "not the big, difficult questions". These are some big difficult questions I can come up with: - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American.. - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia, our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge.. - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant.. Thanks, GerardM On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Fine. Obviously we disagree on what we read in the same text. Now what would be the "correct way" to address a perceived sense of superiority ? Thanks, GerardM On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 11:24, Dan Garry (Deskana) <djgwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You keep mentioning this Anglo-Centric / Wikipedia centric focus of the WMF. WMDE receives substantial monetary support from WMF for Wikidata. Only two years ago dedicated grant funded work was made specific for Wikidata on Commons for both WMF and WMDE. New Editors are working with the Korea and Czech Wikipedias first and foremost. New Readers are first and foremost working in India and South America. The majority of FDC grant funding does not go to English speaking countries. The global partnerships team have an almost entirely non-European / non-Anglo centric focus. The Public Policy team (staff and volunteer) along with staff across the organisation have been working over the past year actively fighting the EU copyright proposal which now has an increasingly non-English centric focus thanks to Brexit. The WMF staff have been becoming more diverse in ethnicity, native country and native language year on year. What makes me laugh is you say the WMF designs for the English Wikipedia and yet so many engineers I speak to say that it's impossible to design and build for the English Wikipedia and port elsewhere and that it's better to design for non-English wiki's and apply to English. More change is needed but please recognise that things are changing. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:15 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: