Hey All
After many years of effort, Internet-in-a-Box is now available at the
Wikipedia store.
https://store.wikimedia.org/products/internet-in-a-box
The device being shipped is a Pi Zero 2 W with 256 Gb uSD. The content on
the device is as listed here
https://iiab.me/starter/
Best
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing some lobbying (I got the info via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided anything yet)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland…
SCM
With respect to one problem we are trying to solve, we need structures
which keep control of the Wikimedia Movement in the hands of the volunteers
who are actively involved in the movement itself. To achieve this I feel we
at least need the majority of the seats on the boards of our largest
movement entities to be directly appointed / elected from the membership of
the movement itself. And that these individuals need to be able to act in
the best interests of the movement as a whole.
This is not something Western corporations are easily structured to
accomplish. However, this is not solved by adding another layer of
bureaucracy, but by improving our current layers. We need to not
allow executive directors / paid staff / current board members undue
influence over bringing on future board members in the name of achieving
their own goals / acquiring certain expertise, etc rather than
accomplishing the communities direct will, with appropriate safeguards in
place.
My 2 cents
James
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:36 PM <offline-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Offline-l mailing list submissions to
> offline-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/offline-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> offline-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Offline-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Movement charter ratification process (Samuel Klein)
> 2. Re: Movement charter ratification process (Federico Leva (Nemo))
> 3. Re: Movement charter ratification process (Florence Devouard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:16:42 -0400
> From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Offline-l] Re: Movement charter ratification process
> To: Using Wikimedia projects and MediaWiki offline
> <offline-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAAtU9W+4e50Sf=
> XiEE3K2D+G6HV3Bt1m+MniHQjw8Hbi7j+ANA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="0000000000008f899f061c49665f"
>
> Thanks both for these thoughts! I also don't want to "just" say yes or
> no, but those are the options.
> We can leave a detailed comment about what we actually want to see. Maybe
> we draft that collaboratively?
>
> Stephane writes:
> > TL;DR: too complicated; structurally unable to address any type of
> challenge.
>
> I agree with this assessment for now. Overall engagement in these matters
> has dropped steadily since 2018. Creating a new body that's likely to
> struggle but will take up the time of another 25-100 people, may be
> depleting a critical resource. My preference is not to 'fake it till we
> make it', but to make simple clear steps that play to our strengths, solve
> explicit problems, and don't further divide us. Iterating on and
> strengthening a much simpler + more focused charter/council could build
> shared identity, and feel like moving from success to success. On this
> issue, to me that suggests voting "No" with a detailed, constructive
> comment rather than "Yes" with such a comment.
>
>
> *Longer thoughts*:
>
> Even at the fully-subsidized WM Summit, people complained it was hard to
> make time to participate without an additional stipend. Not many attendees
> had experience or appetite to run a new parliamentary bureaucracy [except
> those already employed by affiliates, who would be ineligible]. I proposed
> simplifications
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en> to the
> charter at the time; 8 people found me to share comments in person, but
> none left comments or edits online. (I would have been just as happy with
> postive or negative edits; but *no* edits suggests a lack of energy for
> real drafting of policy or process texts)
>
> Participants all wanted more say in global decisions, for various reasons
> (including wanting more say in their own budget growth), but there was an
> odd sense of dependency. At the end of the Summit, a working group was
> formed to organize the next Summit in two years' time. They nominated a
> spokesperson to report to the audience. He said, and I swear I did not
> hallucinate this, "We are excited to start planning the next summit. First
> we need the WMF to provide a staff facilitator to help us schedule our
> meetings and keep notes."
>
> In contrast, the editors on the projects are quite independent, but are not
> that interested in nebulous governance issues. (perhaps like many on this
> list ;) The unaffiliated community hasn't given much feedback up til now,
> and should be part of the next step of the process. We must upgrade our
> global self-governance if we want the projects to evolve and thrive... but
> we have to work up to that.
>
> Things we need:
> a) Some rebalancing of resources across the movement. The example
> championed by Brazil is a good one, we need more like that.
> b) Larger affiliates need more stable funding commitments. Like 3-year
> commitments that can be revised down in line with all budgets if there's a
> global shortfall.
> --> We don't need a charter for these things; but an interim group that
> pushes hard on global allocation percentages. The WMF has already
> committed to having a body that could do this, in place by January.
>
> Problems:
> c) The council as currently written is a new bureaucracy, accountable only
> to itself and its new time-consuming election process.
> d) The latest charter sets up the council to implement and enforce a new
> global strategy... something no one really asked for. It's unlikely to go
> well. (Read cynically, this is a way for the council to force WMF to
> change its plans. Not a good start to trust-building. Under
> "Responsibilities" for WMF, *but not for affiliates*, the Charter reads
> "*The
> Wikimedia Foundation should align its work with the strategic direction and
> global strategy of the Global Council*" )
>
> Problems that may be irreversible:
> e) The current charter is impossible to update. Any edits require 50
> people to support the change on Meta, plus months for translation +
> announcement + full-movement ratification. Of course an edit could change
> the amendment clause... but policy-creep suggests this won't happen. It
> makes no sense to *start* with the sort of red tape that will one day grind
> things to a halt.
> f) The worst outcome in my view is that we somehow create a new class of
> self-perpetuating 'paid global bureaucrats' who become a new power bloc,
> with its own problems and conflicts, without solving existing problems.
>
> Sam.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:00 PM Stephane Coillet-Matillon <
> stephane(a)kiwix.org> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I’ll bite (I’m in a bit of a rush so apologies in advance if the tone
> > seems curt. Not the intent, but emails often come out as such)
> >
> > My first concern is that I still don’t know what the exact problem is
> that
> > this charter is trying to solve. If it is to restore some balance between
> > Chapters/UG on one hand and the Foundation on the other hand (basically
> > undo what Sue Gardner did 15+ years ago and spread money around), I’m not
> > convinced at all: no matter how we frame it, the WMF’s main mission is to
> > support the tech that makes the whole movement exist in the first place,
> > and it is in some respects struggling at that. Except for
> Wikidata/Wikibase
> > (managed by WMDE; and possibly Kiwix as it spun off from WMCH), I don’t
> see
> > chapters/UG having brought much to the table in that regard. Could it be
> > that they could not because they did not have the resources? Well, that’s
> > what someone writing an AI/crypto pitch deck would say, but I’m not
> > convinced.
> >
> > So what is left when all this is said and done is this charter being a
> > fight for the « proper » allocation of money, and there is plenty of
> > literature to explain that there will never be enough of that. Whatever
> the
> > problem, it won’t be solved. In fact, the Brazilians have been *very
> *smart
> > in pushing their requirements for a bigger focus on Global South users
> > (Global Majority is not a good term, so don’t @ me), and it really did
> not
> > require having 100 people sitting on some sort of council to get things
> > moving forward.
> >
> > Which brings me to the Global council, the one thing that really rattles
> > me. There is a structural risk in putting people in charge only because
> > they demonstrated their love and participation in the project rather than
> > because they have specific skills/vision needed to give directions to a
> > Foundation spending 100 millions each year. We already have that, and
> > though I like them as people I also remember
> >
>
Dearly offline,
The Wikimedia Summit was last weekend in Berlin, which I attended on behalf
of WOW. It focused entirely on the idea of a Charter for our movement and
setting up a representative Council that could make global decisions
independently of the WMF.
Notes from the WM Summit
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024#Final_Outputs_of_the_…>
compiled
by the hosts.
Photos from the event
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Summit_2024>
*Charter thoughts*
I found aspects of the current charter draft to be arbitrary and too
operational
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#In_flux,_incomplete,_…>,
creating a large body without clarity about what it would do, with little
connection to the work of editors on the projects, and with hard-to-change
founding documents.
The main focus of the Berlin discussions was to identify changes that
attendees felt had to be made to the charter, for it to work. Answers to
questions posed ['what do you see as deal-breakers to approving a charter?
/ how would you improve the current text?"] were workshopped over two days
in groups. Then there was a final filtering into 46 condensed suggestions
that those in attendance voted on, and this filter removed some important
points of feedback. Given how the whole progressed, it would have
benefited from input from a broader group [at least sharing regular photos
back with our groups? I would try this next time] and from having already
responded to the most common feedback given on the charter talk page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter>.
I don't feel the conclusion of the process worked. Some of the condensed
statements were underspecified, overcomplicated, or costly for little
benefit. Some common points -- for instance, that the charter had to be
simpler; or that a supermajority should be needed for ratification -- were
filtered out entirely. Only one proposal even mentioned unaffiliated
editors + groups, and translated that concept as '*unorganized volunteers*'
which, considering the wealth and depth of on-wiki organization, is not
accurate at all. The emotional build-up to the vote, and the presentation
of proposals in isolation, as though there were no tradeoffs involved,
contributed to every proposal getting majority support.
As an alternate example of how we could make progress in global governance,
I drafted a minimalist charter
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en> that
captures tasks I heard people expect such a body to do, and would stay
flexible while we try to actually address those tasks in the coming year.
This is a wiki document: if the idea appeals, please edit it.
The drafting committee's plan is unchanged: to revise the charter draft
once more, then hold a movement-wide vote to ratify it in June. The
ratification would include a vote of affiliates (one vote per affiliate?),
and a simultaneous vote of all editors (one vote per person).
*Other movement thoughts*
Many recurring topics at the Summit seemed healthy: WMDE was adamant about
helping others learn to manage movement-governance events like the Summit,
and about not hosting themselves in two years' time. The spirit of peer
support and mentorship was very strong.
And some recurring topics felt unhealthy: mainly a sense of dependency.
Some affiliates said they felt they could not do anything without WMF
approval and grants, but did not want to feel any obligation to learn how
to develop independent support and partnerships. Some committee members
felt they could only function with WMF-assigned staff and substantial
budgets, based on a bureaucratic model of governance that has not worked
well for us.
*WOW interest*
There was much interest in offline wikis among other attendees, and people
who said they would reach out in the coming weeks. We might think about
running an online workshop on getting started with offline wikis, before
Wikimania. Jan Ainali interviewed me and others about our groups, for a
podcast series; I will let you know when it comes out.
— SJ
Hey All
A few updates from Wiki Med.
1) We are transitioning the Internets-in-a-Box we ship to using 256 Gb SD
cards and rasp pi zero W 2s. Shipment of new parts just came in. Price per
unit is staying the same at 40 USD for LMIC and 50 USD for high income
countries. https://mdwiki.org/wiki/WikiProjectMed:Internet-in-a-Box
2) We are working on an agreement to distribute the devices via the
Wikipedia store. Prices there will likely be a fair bit more due to the
costs added by that service but will be much more professional looking than
what we offer now.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Promoting someone else initiatives here... which might be of interest to you
From Joris Darlington
We're thrilled to announce that all recorded sessions from the
Wikimedia Tech Safari Program are now uploaded to the program's schedule
and documentation pages!
Thank you for your patience as we processed the recordings. We also
want to express our sincere gratitude for your participation and
contributions to a fantastic program.
You can find the recordings listed alongside the speaker
information, community links, and source code details for each session.
Schedule :
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Tech_Safari_Program/Schedule
Documentation :
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Tech_Safari_Program/Documentation
Flo/Anthere
Hello everyone
I hope every one is ok !
Please allow me to share with you a recent message from Natalia related
to proposed modifications to requirements for affiliates to stay in good
standing.
Short version, look at this page on meta :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Affiliates_Strategy/Re…
Best
Florence
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : [Wikimedia-l] Feedback invited on proposed requirements for
affiliates & user groups recognition changes
Date : Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:56:25 +0200
De : Nataliia Tymkiv <ntymkiv(a)wikimedia.org>
Répondre à : Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Pour : Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear all,
I would like to share with you the outputs of the Wikimedia Foundation
Affiliate Strategy process [1], and to invite you to give feedback on
the proposed changes to requirements for all affiliates & to user groups
recognition process (more below).
The 2017 Strategic Direction
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017>says
that we, the Wikimedia Movement, would build “the services and
structures that enable others to … advance our world by collecting
knowledge that fully represents human diversity” while carrying on “our
mission of developing content”. As Wikimedia affiliates are a key and
integral part of the Wikimedia movement and have knowledge and expertise
to share, the movement’s success depends greatly on affiliates as they
help people join us in doing mission-aligned work. The Wikimedia
Foundation Affiliates Strategy report [2] identified a need to
streamline the role of the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) on
recognition of Wikimedia Affiliates, and identified issues with the
current state of the process.
After conversations with AffCom, the Board liaisons to AffCom identified
two areas for improvement. These areas are about the relevant work and
mandate of the Board related to affiliate recognition:
1) requirements for affiliates; and
2) improving the workflows around the process for the creation and
recognition of a user group.
The proposal on Meta [3] is suggesting to change the requirements for
all existing Wikimedia affiliates, not just the legal entities. There
are ten proposed criteria for a healthy affiliate. Examples include
focusing on continuity by being an active group and welcoming new users,
having good governance, and actively delivering on mission goals.
Compliance with these requirements would be self-reported by the
affiliates. The Board liaisons will work with the Affiliations Committee
to publish a resolution outlining how affiliates would be expected to
fulfill these requirements to remain in good standing.
Throughout the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliate Strategy process, there
was also feedback about user groups. Initially, user groups were meant
as a first step toward creating chapters or thematic organizations. Over
the years, user groups have evolved and there are now legally
incorporated user groups, user groups with boards, etc. Getting started
does need to be easy, but also needs to make sense, and so there is a
proposal for changes to the current workflow. The recommendations [3]
include an outline of the sequential steps of a revised process.
The feedback can be given from today up till March 20, 2024 (Anywhere on
Earth). Hopefully a fairly long feedback period will allow affiliates to
consult with their membership, thinking it through practically.
To provide your feedback, please review the page here, on Meta, [3] and
leave comments on the talk page. Alternatively, you can join an open
call (February 14 and 28 at 14:00 to 14:30 UTC) or request a
conversation as a part of Talking:2024
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Comm…>.
You can use the Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs
Committee/Talking: 2024#Let’s Talk|Let’s Talk
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Comm…'s_talk>feature
to sign up for a time to speak with me and other trustees about this
conversation or any other topic regarding the Wikimedia Foundation
Board, Movement Strategy, and more.
Note: New user group applications will be placed on hold for the
duration of this conversation – but the ones received before will be
reviewed according to the current process.
Best regards,
Nat & Mike & LorenzoWikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Liaisons to
the Affiliations Committee
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Affiliates_Strategy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Affiliates_Strategy>
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Wiki…
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Wiki…>
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Affiliates_Strategy/Re…
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
/NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during
weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days
off. Thank you in advance!/
Dear Wikimedians,
We hope this message finds you well and that you are in good spirits. We
are the Let’s Connect working group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Knowledge_Sharing/Connect/Team>- a
team of movement contributors/organizers who are liaison representatives of 7/8
regions <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_regions>. We are
connecting with you to see if you are interested in and/or know about the
peer-to-peer program, Let’s Connect
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Knowledge_Sharing/Connect>!
The program creates an open and safe learning space for any Wikimedian who is
part of an organized group to share and learn different skills
(organizational/interpersonal / grant related / learning & evaluation ...)
with other peers to add value and contribute collectively to the community.
The purpose is to further develop skills, share knowledge and promote human
connections and mutual support between different groups and communities, in
alignment with the Movement Strategy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy>.
Every month, we host 2-3 live 2-hour learning clinics
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Knowledge_Sharing/Connect#Live_learn…>
with
interesting topics selected by our team and our interested sharers. Our
live learning sessions have up to 4 interpreters translating the clinic for
our participants. Our main languages are Spanish | Arabic | French |
Portuguese. If there is a specific language you would like to see in the
calls, we are happy to see how we can accommodate it.
Let’s Connect is directed at Wikimedians in all regions that are part of
organized groups (this can range from a group of individuals that are not
formally organized user groups, chapters and mission-aligned
organizations). Please see our Meta page for more criteria
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Knowledge_Sharing/Connect#Who_is_Let…>.
To participate as a sharer, you can register in this initial registration
form
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdiea87tSYmB2-1XHn_u8RLe7efMJifJBz…>
where
you can register your learning and sharing interests and state if you want
to share your knowledge through Learning Clinics.
Below, you will find our team of 8 who are excited to meet with you if you
are interested. Please email our team at letsconnect(a)wikimedia.org if you
have any questions :)
We look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
The Let’s Connect Working Group