Dear all,
A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page.
A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward in the next 15 days. We are:
Bence Damakos - ChapCom Bishakha Datta - WMF Board Joan Goma - Amical Sam Klein - WMF Board Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor Marcos Talles - WM ES Galileo Vidoni - WM AR
Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members is already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the issue, or is likely to be affected by it.
We will conduct our discussions on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per the following timetable:
*2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation... Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2 March
*2.2 Requirements for recognition * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirement... Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March
*2.3 Rights and duties * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_... Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March
*2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_an... Deadline for c and q: 8 March
*2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership....
Deadline: 10 March
*2.6 Mentoring and review* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_a... Deadline: 12 March
*2.7 Governance* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance Deadline: 14 March
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above. (Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your interest and participation.
Cheers Bishakha
And the rest of MR working group? _____ * *
*[image: Inline images 1]*
*Béria Lima*
* *
* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*
*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos**
* ** http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 March 2012 14:46, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page.
A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward in the next 15 days. We are:
Bence Damakos - ChapCom Bishakha Datta - WMF Board Joan Goma - Amical Sam Klein - WMF Board Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor Marcos Talles - WM ES Galileo Vidoni - WM AR
Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members is already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the issue, or is likely to be affected by it.
We will conduct our discussions on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per the following timetable:
*2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation... Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2 March
*2.2 Requirements for recognition
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirement... Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March
*2.3 Rights and duties *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_... Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March
*2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_an... Deadline for c and q: 8 March
*2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership....
Deadline: 10 March
*2.6 Mentoring and review*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_a... Deadline: 12 March
*2.7 Governance* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance Deadline: 14 March
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above. (Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your interest and participation.
Cheers Bishakha
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
And the rest of MR working group?
Hi Beria,
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above. (Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your interest and participation.
I think the last two paragraphs from Bishakha's letter captures the intent quite well. Everyone is welcome to join in, especially those on the MR group. It is not meant to be exclusionary in any way.
Best regards, Bence
Why are you picking and choosing from the group now?
I have to say I am very surprised to see Achal still included in the group, after virtually no involvement in the group in the past year. Not to mention some conflicts with Goma.
Sj, what happened to opening the group and everything up? This in my view is a step in the other direction.
Regard Theo
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
Dear all,
A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page.
A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward in the next 15 days. We are:
Bence Damakos - ChapCom Bishakha Datta - WMF Board Joan Goma - Amical Sam Klein - WMF Board Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor Marcos Talles - WM ES Galileo Vidoni - WM AR
Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members is already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the issue, or is likely to be affected by it.
We will conduct our discussions on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per the following timetable:
*2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation... Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2 March
*2.2 Requirements for recognition
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirement... Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March
*2.3 Rights and duties *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_... Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March
*2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_an... Deadline for c and q: 8 March
*2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership....
Deadline: 10 March
*2.6 Mentoring and review*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_a... Deadline: 12 March
*2.7 Governance* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance Deadline: 14 March
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above. (Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your interest and participation.
Cheers Bishakha
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Why are you picking and choosing from the group now?
I have to say I am very surprised to see Achal still included in the group, after virtually no involvement in the group in the past year. Not to mention some conflicts with Goma.
Sj, what happened to opening the group and everything up? This in my view is a step in the other direction.
Regard Theo
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group (sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort, this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.
Cheers Bishakha
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group (sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort, this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.
I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&...
As far as achal goes- http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&...
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the "steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
Personally I have no “merit” to belong to this group nor “cracy” to force anyone to do anything. From my point of view it is not a matter of meritocracy I do it solely for the money they pay me, so I accepted the commitment to give my opinion to the questions raised according to the fixed timetable.
Personally I have no conflict with you and would be very pleased if you also post your comments. The salary is very good. The quantity has the advantage that if Bishakha do not want to pay you we can share my salary and both earn the same.
Hint:
x = x/2 -> x = 0
2012/3/1 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group (sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort, this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.
I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&...
As far as achal goes- http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&...
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the "steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
I don't know what you are talking about. Yes, half of nothing is nothing, no one is getting paid, not sure what's the point of bringing it up in a group that has only volunteers. Did someone imply otherwise?
Your condescending comments, while intended to sarcastic are not making any sense. None of the board members or the participants are there for money.
This is about volunteer work, my time, and time of several others over the last year. Don't devalue mine for yours, or value the one who didn't give any.
The conflict I referred to, was Amical is/has been the group that this recognition model would be implemented for, while I always valued your involvement, I do think this is not giving a proper representation to all the interests involved.
Regards Theo
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Joan Goma jrgoma@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I have no “merit” to belong to this group nor “cracy” to force anyone to do anything. From my point of view it is not a matter of meritocracy I do it solely for the money they pay me, so I accepted the commitment to give my opinion to the questions raised according to the fixed timetable.
Personally I have no conflict with you and would be very pleased if you also post your comments. The salary is very good. The quantity has the advantage that if Bishakha do not want to pay you we can share my salary and both earn the same.
Hint:
x = x/2 -> x = 0
2012/3/1 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group (sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort, this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.
I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&...
As far as achal goes- http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&...
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the "steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi Theo,
In reply to your previous e-mail, I have no info about an in-person meeting or the possibility that this chosen group would be funded to travel to Berlin – that seems very unlikely given that the work is scheduled to finish before the Berlin conference and is to happen online.
You are right that the grouping includes people who have previously contributed to the wider topic in one way or another (e.g. I could cite Achal's pilot to bootstrap the South African chapter) even if not necessarily the movement roles discussion; and might not include some very active participants of the MR group.
The grouping is a bit random but it does not necessarily exclude some prominent people because of spite, but simply because they were busy (e.g. Alice or Lodewijk have been approached to my knowledge) or noone thought of them. What Goma refers to is, there is no benefit in either being in the group or not being in the group as the work is happening on Meta, there is no new mailing list (Bishakha might send some reminders on the MR list), nothing at all (and with your questioning, I would say that there are negative benefits). There is nothing to stop Bishakha from creating ten different, competing groups, some of them even overlapping and having them work on Meta; similarly it doesn't matter if I create an anti-group, the end goal is that work is done on the one Meta on time.
If it helps, I am very happy to exchange places with you on this distinguished group. And as Goma put it, as there is no benefit, I am happy to share my one spot in the group and all the benefits and corresponding work of it with as many people as would like to join.
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what you are talking about. Yes, half of nothing is nothing, no one is getting paid, not sure what's the point of bringing it up in a group that has only volunteers. Did someone imply otherwise?
Your condescending comments, while intended to sarcastic are not making any sense. None of the board members or the participants are there for money.
This is about volunteer work, my time, and time of several others over the last year. Don't devalue mine for yours, or value the one who didn't give any.
The conflict I referred to, was Amical is/has been the group that this recognition model would be implemented for, while I always valued your involvement, I do think this is not giving a proper representation to all the interests involved.
Regards Theo
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Joan Goma jrgoma@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I have no “merit” to belong to this group nor “cracy” to force anyone to do anything. From my point of view it is not a matter of meritocracy I do it solely for the money they pay me, so I accepted the commitment to give my opinion to the questions raised according to the fixed timetable.
Personally I have no conflict with you and would be very pleased if you also post your comments. The salary is very good. The quantity has the advantage that if Bishakha do not want to pay you we can share my salary and both earn the same.
Hint:
x = x/2 -> x = 0
2012/3/1 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bishakha Datta < bishakhadatta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group (sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort, this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.
I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&...
As far as achal goes- http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&...
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the "steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo,
In reply to your previous e-mail, I have no info about an in-person meeting or the possibility that this chosen group would be funded to travel to Berlin – that seems very unlikely given that the work is scheduled to finish before the Berlin conference and is to happen online.
You are right that the grouping includes people who have previously contributed to the wider topic in one way or another (e.g. I could cite Achal's pilot to bootstrap the South African chapter) even if not necessarily the movement roles discussion; and might not include some very active participants of the MR group.
The grouping is a bit random but it does not necessarily exclude some prominent people because of spite, but simply because they were busy (e.g. Alice or Lodewijk have been approached to my knowledge) or noone thought of them. What Goma refers to is, there is no benefit in either being in the group or not being in the group as the work is happening on Meta, there is no new mailing list (Bishakha might send some reminders on the MR list), nothing at all (and with your questioning, I would say that there are negative benefits). There is nothing to stop Bishakha from creating ten different, competing groups, some of them even overlapping and having them work on Meta; similarly it doesn't matter if I create an anti-group, the end goal is that work is done on the one Meta on time.
This is a very accurate characterization. I did speak to Lodewijk and Alice, who could not commit.
As Bence puts it, the only extra 'benefit' that the 7 people who have agreed apart from me seem to get is that I will hound them by email and push them to contribute within the timeline etc.
There is no new mailing list, nothing at all - so can you please bring your thoughts on to meta as you have done in the past and follow the timeline? That will really help.
Best Bishakha
did you talk with the other members? Aniruhd and Theo for example aren't in your list. Can you tell me why? _____ * *
*[image: Inline images 1]*
*Béria Lima*
* *
* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*
*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos**
* ** http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 2 March 2012 03:03, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo,
In reply to your previous e-mail, I have no info about an in-person meeting or the possibility that this chosen group would be funded to travel to Berlin – that seems very unlikely given that the work is scheduled to finish before the Berlin conference and is to happen online.
You are right that the grouping includes people who have previously contributed to the wider topic in one way or another (e.g. I could cite Achal's pilot to bootstrap the South African chapter) even if not necessarily the movement roles discussion; and might not include some very active participants of the MR group.
The grouping is a bit random but it does not necessarily exclude some prominent people because of spite, but simply because they were busy (e.g. Alice or Lodewijk have been approached to my knowledge) or noone thought of them. What Goma refers to is, there is no benefit in either being in the group or not being in the group as the work is happening on Meta, there is no new mailing list (Bishakha might send some reminders on the MR list), nothing at all (and with your questioning, I would say that there are negative benefits). There is nothing to stop Bishakha from creating ten different, competing groups, some of them even overlapping and having them work on Meta; similarly it doesn't matter if I create an anti-group, the end goal is that work is done on the one Meta on time.
This is a very accurate characterization. I did speak to Lodewijk and Alice, who could not commit.
As Bence puts it, the only extra 'benefit' that the 7 people who have agreed apart from me seem to get is that I will hound them by email and push them to contribute within the timeline etc.
There is no new mailing list, nothing at all - so can you please bring your thoughts on to meta as you have done in the past and follow the timeline? That will really help.
Best Bishakha
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Sorry to be late to the party. I have a bit trouble understanding the structure of the discussion page (many opinions seem to be unsigned and it is unclear what is opinion and what is statement of consensus) but I have tried to add some remarks here and there.
Lodewijk
No dia 1 de Março de 2012 18:46, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comescreveu:
Dear all,
A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page.
A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward in the next 15 days. We are:
Bence Damakos - ChapCom Bishakha Datta - WMF Board Joan Goma - Amical Sam Klein - WMF Board Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor Marcos Talles - WM ES Galileo Vidoni - WM AR
Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members is already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the issue, or is likely to be affected by it.
We will conduct our discussions on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per the following timetable:
*2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation... Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2 March
*2.2 Requirements for recognition
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirement... Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March
*2.3 Rights and duties *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_... Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March
*2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_an... Deadline for c and q: 8 March
*2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership....
Deadline: 10 March
*2.6 Mentoring and review*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_a... Deadline: 12 March
*2.7 Governance* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance Deadline: 14 March
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above. (Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your interest and participation.
Cheers Bishakha
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org