Okay, this is a first part of the short report of the 2005 elections
to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.
First of all, the most important for us, the translation. The election
notice has been translated to 28 languages, the majority of Wikimedia
users are probably aware of the election.
As for the candidates, it's not so good, but the major Wikimedia
languages are covered. The candidate statements are available in 14
different languages (actually, the translation to Zh and Ca of
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen is still needed), so that shouldn't be a
problem.
Now, we had one minor problem - it turned out we had to change the
requirements to vote from at least 400 edits on every project, to at
least 400 edits on ONE project. We weren't too happy about making a
change, but we all accepted it - it had to be done due to technical
issues.
Tim Starling has put the Election UI up for translation today, we hope
it'll get translated on major Wikipedias if not today, tomorrow or the
day after, when the local sysops will notice that a part of the page
is left in English.
Back to the technical issues - we aren't sure yet how the 1.5
migration will effect the election. Tim said everything will go okay,
but it has to be noted that the migration might not be finished until
midnight UTC time. If that will be the case, the elections will be
delayed for a few hours. It's nothing big to worry about, though.
And, finally, we have 5 candidates. Angela with Anthere are standing
for re-election, Arno Lagrange and Cimon avaro are running in the
elections again, and Francis Schonken is standing for the first time.
On behalf of the Election Officials, I wish everyone good luck!
--
Best regards and sorry for my broken English, I'm tired ;),
Darek "Datrio" Siedlecki
My idea for Faith Wiki was to have a place for people to be able to think
and discuss. I guess in some strange way, I have provided that. IMHO it
would be very wrong to limit any proposals. Proposals leads to discussion,
discussion leads to thinking. Instead of limiting proposals maybe the board
could decide upon a time limit or a minimum activity level with the
discussions before the proposal changes from an "idea" to an actual
proposal.
I unfortunately have not been able to convey the scope of my idea to the
people who have responded. I am not going to rescind my proposal as I feal
it would be an extremely valuable service. I however have been introduced to
a fledgling site called
Religion-Wiki<http://religion.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Main_Page>.
Though the description is smaller in scope than what I can conceive, I have
been in contact with the project leader and she can see it expanding well
past the origional concept. I will concentrate on that rather than
attempting to compete with it.
Sean
Hi,
I very rarely post to the wikimedia mailing lists, but this message caught my attention. It mentions something that I feel is very important. Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>
refers to the problem of distinguishing different types of links, which might be hard for the color blind. She says:
"Sure this isnt really important..."
I don't agree with this remark in any way. I think that the "accessibility" of our site is quite important. By Section 508 of our accessibility laws, the U.S. government is not allowed to use non-accessible computer software, applications, etc. Further, I believe it is morally right that our site be accessible.
If anything, I think it is time to review our site for accessibility. What could Jimbo mean by his oft-quoted statement:
Wikipedia is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_WalesGoal)
if our site is not available to the millions of disabled in the U.S., not to mention the world.
The W3 has complete guidelines on accessibility for web site designers to implement:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>
> G'day all,
>
> Currently the colour of the normal link and the visited link are
> indistinguishable to the colourblind. This is a problem across all the
> sites we have. Sure this isnt really important, but are then any web
> designers who have faced this problem before who could suggest colours
> which could be distinguished by most colourblind ppl (since most
> colourblind ppl arent completely colourblind, just red-green
> colourblind). Apparently about 10 percent of ppl are colourblind
>
> paz y amor,
> -rjs.
>
> --
> hit me: <robin.shannon.id.au>
> jab me: <robin.shannon(a)jabber.org.au>
>
> upgrade to ubuntu linux: <http://www.spreadubuntu.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
After Ruth suggested Quarto be held from publication until it was proofread, Anthere wrote:> I frankly do not know what to do. I just know I am all> for the board giving more information to the community> and making it available widely.Angela said :
Perhaps this needs to be done in a less time-intensive way. Couldn't alarge glossy Quarto be published every 6 months instead of every 3,with simple text based reports from the Board given monthly inaddition to the reports I already make athttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings ? When I say simple, Imean the report would be on one page, not split across various wikisand various templates. These reports could be limited to what actuallyhappened, rather than opinions on that, meaning it could be muchshorter than it would be in Quarto, and therefore much quicker andeasier to translate.
----------------------
Why not. What I fear Angela, is duplication of efforts.
Currently, we have 3 sources of information.
* The reports from all meetings. The benefit is that these reports are very straightforward, done in a very timely fashion.
The main four disadvantages is that not everything is done in meetings (far from it), so not everything gets reported.
Secondly, it is not translated. Third, these are only decisions from the board, not from officers.
Fourth, they do not include personal opinions or thoughts. I do not mean it is wrong, they are only minutes from meetings, and should stay this way.
* The Quarto. It is supposed to be four issues per year. Though, I suspect only probably three this year. As you mention, it is not meant to be done in a timely fashion, but rather
to generally inform a couple of times a year. It is more a "state of the projects" at a given time. The main disadvantage is that it is slow.
* The main page with news on the Foundation Wiki. It was started more recently. I expect it relies a lot on good will of 1) board members of WMF
2) board members of local chapters, 3) officers and 4) generally involved editors. I wish it to be with a date and signed so that to make it clear where
the information will come. Advantage : it offers the opportunity to stick to real time events. Disadvantages : 1) it is only a short statement, 2) editors do not feel
entitled to make reports or do not think of doing some or do not feel like doing them, 3) it is not frequently translated.
If we add a monthly report, I fear we fall somewhere in between Quarto and the Foundation main page... and end up duplicating efforts.
Besides, I do not think it is efficient that *we* do such a report, as the ones having most of the information in their hands are not necessarily us... but those specifically
involved in an issue. Typically, Dammit or Brion or JeLuF or Kate or Tim (and many more here, I do not want to hurt any one) know much more of the current state of our servers
than us.
But your idea suggest that we should perhaps mostly improve the Foundation main page greatly and try to increase the number of reports there.
Most of the frame of the Foundation site is set now.
But we still are very much behind in terms of information available on the website.
If the aim of the newsletter is to get Board information out to peoplein a timely way, then I don't think Quarto is meeting that goal, and Idon't think it should try to. I see Quarto as something lesstime-urgent, and something which ought to be developed by thecommunity, not the Board.I'm copying this to Foundation-l since the the distribution ofinformation from the Board needs to be discussed by more people thanthe very small group on the Quarto list. Angela.
As a side comment, the Quarto is essentially done by the community. Not by the board. Only two pages or the 8 items are focusing on the board and the Foundation activity in itself. Page 1 is the welcome. Page 2 is letter from Jimbo and the board. Page 3 is report about Foundation activity. Page 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are about projects reports, various initiatives on projects or projects wide, interviews, wikimania, local chapters activity, wikipedians meetups, image gallery, press coverage etc... Anyone can participate to those and is welcome to do so.
Talking about information sharing.... information is not a one way event.
I think I said it many times already, and will again repeat it, because I feel it is not entering many ears. And reading Cimon candidate statement, I wonder how our efforts to communicate are perceived. Expecting the board to inform you is one thing, but if you are not happy by the way we inform you, please try to help us decipher what you want. There is little I find more perplexing than to read some people find themselves badly informed and when we ask them how to improve things, there is absolutely no comment whatsoever.
Second, if you expect us to inform you, there is a similar requirement from us toward you. Danny made a good suggestion recently, which could be one way to tell us what you want. Perhaps all this does not concern editors on THIS mailing list, but only editors on the project, who do not read this list. If so, what do you suggest we could do to improve feedback given to us ?
Note finally, that this is not adressed only to editors, but also to officers or informed editors. We hope to receive information from officers. We hope they will help us gather information and we hope they can help us feed back this information to editors. I'll pick up a recent example which reflects pretty well my dismay. There was this deal with KDE. It was discussed on irc whether we should publish a little something on the WMF website. Someone told me "well, just make a report yourself on the matter". Fine, but guys, I promise "Wikimedia will develop an API which will allow developers to integrate Wikimedia content in their programs" means absolutely nothing to me. I do not know what an API is. How can I be expected to report something I just understand nothing about ? I just can't do it. And each time I feel like editors should be informed on a technical matter, please do not answer me "well, you know very well yourself, can't you just check and make a report yourself ?". Well,
no, I can not. Those who have the information should realise that they are empowered to give it and to help others to understand. Rather than to keep information for themselves. Not expect that others know all of it and will report about it.
Last point. It would be correct that information be openly and spontaneously provided by officers. I am thinking of possibly suggesting that something like a monthly report or something similar be provided by officers. Even if it to write in it "all is well, nothing to report" or "I have had no time to do anything special this month". It should not be seen as control or police thought or whatever, but only information sharing. It is not efficient/proper that officers do things, in particular with external contacts, with the hat of an officer, without the board knowing, or with only certain board members knowing. First because it could lead us appearing quite stupid in front of potential partners. Second because two people could be doing the same thing, hence losing their time. Currently, this information sharing does not occur very well. Either information is not provided, or only indirectly provided. Indirect source is not good either, because each additional step distort the
information given. Again, I have mentionned many times that I felt badly informed on some topics, or that only partial information was circulating. I would really like to improve this. Again, no good decision can be taken when information is lacking, and no information will be provided to editors when the information is unknown by the reporter itself.
Anthere
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
One could say we're starting serious work on the Polish local chapter.
Therefore, I wanted to ask the foundation a couple of things.
1. From what I understand, Wikimedia Poland could either be a part of
Foundation Wikimedia, or it could be a partner of it. What are the
differences between the two, and what would be better for the
foundation in the end?
2. Some of the Polish Wikipedia users had plan to gain money for
Wikipedia by selling custom t-shirts (just like on CafePress), etc.
Would it be possible for us to make an agreement by which we could
gain money for our chapter in this way?
3. Again a question related with money - we'll forward a part of our
income to the Foundation for the servers and any other administrative
tasks, but the question is - should we forward a specified amount
monthly/yearly (like 10.000 Euro per year) or a percentage of our
total income?
4. One of the Wikimedia Chapter pages mentions that the local chapter
should have at least 20 members on start. The Polish law states we
need 15 members. Would it be okay if we'd start the chapter with 15
members (as probably that much will come to the founding meeting) and
then apply the other members as for membership?
I think that's all for now. We should have a draft of the bylaws soon
posted in Polish, and we'll be ready to send them to the foundation in
the third week of July. If there won't be any objections, we'll start
Wikimedia Poland in the middle of August.
If the Foundation has any questions or comments, I'll be happy to
listen to them and forward them to our community.
--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
After Ruth suggested Quarto be held from publication until it was proofread,
Anthere wrote:
> I frankly do not know what to do. I just know I am all
> for the board giving more information to the community
> and making it available widely.
Perhaps this needs to be done in a less time-intensive way. Couldn't a
large glossy Quarto be published every 6 months instead of every 3,
with simple text based reports from the Board given monthly in
addition to the reports I already make at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings ? When I say simple, I
mean the report would be on one page, not split across various wikis
and various templates. These reports could be limited to what actually
happened, rather than opinions on that, meaning it could be much
shorter than it would be in Quarto, and therefore much quicker and
easier to translate.
If the aim of the newsletter is to get Board information out to people
in a timely way, then I don't think Quarto is meeting that goal, and I
don't think it should try to. I see Quarto as something less
time-urgent, and something which ought to be developed by the
community, not the Board.
I'm copying this to Foundation-l since the the distribution of
information from the Board needs to be discussed by more people than
the very small group on the Quarto list.
Angela.
Hello all,
Right now we acceted our 5th candidate,
his statement is need to translate as soon as possible; the vote will
begin within one and a half day. It is written in English and on the
page below.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2005/En#Jussi-Ville_Heis…
Strongly needed translation (for equality of oppotunity for all candidates) are:
Ca, De, Eo, Es, Fr, It, Ja, Nl, Pl, Uk, Zh
Your cooperation will be very appreciated.
--
Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
A little announcement by Lilo, the director of PDPC and the head of
staff of freenode. For those who do not know... Freenode is ... our irc
service...
Freenode is short on their last fundraising and would welcome any help
from those who use irc, likes it (ircholics) ....
The fundraising page is http://freenode.net/fundraiser.shtml
For those who wish to support freenode, please paste the little text
below on your project pumps or news page. Thanks in advance for freenode.
Anthere
* '''24 June 2005 : Please help'''. [[w:Peer-Directed Projects Center]]
runs [[w:freenode]], an interactive service which helps Wikipedia and
the FOSS community. Their annual fundraiser ends July 1, and they're
about $8,500 short. [http://freenode.net/fundraiser.shtml Their
fundraising page]. From Lilo, the director of PDPC and the head of staff
of freenode. Please spread the word... freenode is very helpful for us.
Hello all,
In this email, I would like to propose a few ideas for grants and
money-raising, in order to get community feedback. The focus of this email will be
smaller grants and donations.
In the past few months, various people have raised projects that require
particular funding. This ranges from the large amount required to put the
Ultimate Wiktionary project into motion by developing an appropriate database, to
smaller projects such as Amikeco's work in the Ossetian language and Guako's
work promoting Wikimedia projects in Mali. Should the Foundation choose to go
ahead with these projects—and in some cases, it already has--the potential
costs will add to our existing budget for regular maintenance, new servers,
transportation and communication expenses, etc.
That is not to say that these projects should not be pursued. In fact, some
people might have a particular interest in promoting one or another of these
projects.
I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility of earmarking their
donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they want
their money to go. In that case, one donor may give specifically for servers,
while another donor may give specifically to promote a language, print a
particular wikibook, or whatever.
The option will work as follows:
1. People interested in promoting particular projects will be asked to
create a project page, and to submit a budget for their project. The "Total
Cost" will be the amount of money they would like to collect for the project +
the additional percentage charged by PayPal. + 10 percent (to be explained
below). Budgets should be as detailed as possible to inspire confidence in the
project and explain exactly where the money is going.
1. Donors giving to the Foundation will have the option of either
giving directly to the general running costs of Wikimedia or perusing the list of
specific projects. They can then decide how they want their money to be
spent.
1. IMPORTANT: In the event that people decide to give money to a
specific project, it will be made clear to them that 10 percent will be deducted
automatically for "Overhead," i.e., the day-to-day costs of running the
Wikimedia Foundation. In other words, even if someone decides to give $100 toward
printing the Wiki-Roadkill-Cookbook with scratch-and-smell recipes, $10 dollars
will still be deducted for use by the Foundation as the Board sees fit.
1. Sums collected will be charted on the project page. Once a project
has reached its target sum, it will be removed from the list of projects
available to donors. Any additional funds earned will be given to the general
Foundation fund.
Advantages
I believe that this proposal has a number of important advantages.
1. This allows us to focus on our goals as a charitable organization,
with the objective of giving to others.
2. It allows for projects to grow naturally as a reflection of the
interests of the community and the donors.
3. People involved in specific projects will naturally assume the
responsibility of "Project Heads" and naturally grow to fill leadership positions
4. Motivated individuals will promote their projects, gaining them
greater visibility.
5. Public budgets for projects will foster greater transparency of the
financial process. People like to know where their money is going and how it
is being spent.
6. With several projects emerging, the Foundation will be able to
release a "Catalogue of Giving Opportunities" for potential donors, including
large-gift donors.
7. Budgets for these projects will be a genuine reflection of needs,
and benefit from being accessible to community comment.
Disadvantages
Though I am thoroughly biased in favor of this, I have not discussed it with
Mav and others involved in finances, and I want to make sure something of
this sort is feasible, and that it does not pose too much work on people
handling the money.
I am very eager to hear your responses to this proposal. More proposals
regarding larger grants will be forthcoming over the next few days.
Danny
Member, Wikimedia Grants Team