Unlike the Assembly, Meta is not an structured body. The Assembly will serve as a unified community voice, not the meta aspects of projects.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:15:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
> From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>
> What makes it any different than any current list or page?
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> As of this point the Community has no leadership body. This would step in and fill the void without disenfranchising the collective voice of the community.
This sounds to me very much like meta.wikimedia.org.
Thanks,
Pharos
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
This idea is fairly straightforward. Could you point to specific issues and how it is bureaucratic?
----- Original Message ----
From: Ryan <wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:21:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The Wikimedia Community Assembly is a proposed leadership body for the
> Wikimedia Community. This proposal is is designed to be significantly more
> straightforward, inclusive, and less bureaucratic than the Wikicouncil or
> Community of the Wikimedian Projects. The impetus for this proposal is the
> void that currently exists in community governance. This gap is prohibitive
> to the full realization of the potential of the community as an asset to the
> Foundation. To address this gap, its most important task would providing a
> unified community voice to the Board and the world.
> In accordance with the principles of the open source movement, membership
> in the Assembly would be granted to any Wikimedian who requests it. By doing
> so, this would prevent this body from becoming a elitist cabal, by insuring
> that all are heard, not just a privileged few. To prevent this body from
> being dragged down by size, which does not allow for business to be
> conducted in an orderly and efficent fashion, subgroups
> (Committees/Commissions/Working Groups/Task Forces) specializing in specific
> issues would be created. Any 5 members with a specific issue or topic would
> be able to create a subgroup to work on that issue or topic. Membership in
> these issue specific subgroups would be open to all, but if necessary due to
> size, another group might be formed.
> The Assembly would run according to a community written charter, that would
> be revised at least once every calendar year. Decisions of the Assembly
> would be made by consensus, as with most other Wikimedian projects.
>
> Can I get some thoughts on this?
>
Frankly, it sounds like yet another idea that is much more bureaucratic than
it's worth, and one that doesn't solve any problem currently before us.
You've already created more rules for this assembly than it could possibly
make for itself.
--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Greetings,
I have updated the agenda for the future board meetings.
I will normally chair the next two meetings, but I was bold and gave an
outline of what the future meetings could also include ;-)
You will find the complete information here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings
Please add comments on the talk page if you wish
Below, I'll comment a bit longer on the next two agendas
IRC meeting in june
* review of the D&O (was not received in time at last board meeting)
D&O ---> insurance
* official (re)-creation of the ED evaluation committee and timeline
currently, the committee include only JB and I.
* approval of the Role of the treasurer (already drafted)
it is more or less the description we posted here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Treasurer
* approval of the Role of the chair
currently:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Description_of_board_members_jobs
* approval of the Role of the secretary
currently:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Description_of_board_members_jobs
* discussion over adoption (or not) of a Board attendance policy (not
drafted)
It is one of my requests, but does not seem to get much support for now
* first feedback from new treasurer
Self explanatory
* approval of new privacy policy
(if available on time, otherwise -> july. Already mentionned in
previous emails)
* approval of budget
(to be approved in june, whether at meeting or email)
* feedback on the new pledge and attendance policy (see Mike email)
new version was received 2 days ago
1 day at Wikimania (july 08)
1 day, probably on the 15th of july
* approval of Resolution:Minutes approval April 2008
* official acceptance of new board member
* elections of new chair
* official creation of the board nominating committee
according to board restructuration
incidently, I would love some feedback from you guys about this
committee. If you feel someone should really be on it, to help identify
our future appointed members, I'll listen carefully and suggest the name
to the board. Please do not feel left out from this part of the process.
You are more than welcome being involved in it. I hope we'll talk more
of this in june. This should be an open discussion.
* financial report (included email audit report from Stu)
* ED report
* comment on draft from the chapters re:governance issues
Hopefully, chapters will have a first proposition for the elections
by then. To be further discussed at may meeting in Netherlands
* advisory board meeting feedback
An advisory board meeting will take place the day before the board
meeting. I do not know clearly yet what the agenda of this meeting is.
* possibility of future sub-national entities as a different tier
organizations to be discussed
That's essentially a discussion around chapters, or near-chapters;
US chapters etc...
It may be an extended meeting (more participants than board proper)
Beyond these two dates, it is a bit the mystery :-)
My own suggestions would be that by summer 08, a business strategy
should have been outlined by the staff, and I hope we'll get something
presented, to approve.
Given that the fundraising people have not yet been hired, approving a
fundraising strategy might be difficult. However, september will
probably be the right time to start working on the annual online
fundraising. So, I expect a strategy of some sort will have to be
discussed and approved.
Fall will probably be dedicated to financial/audit considerations, after
we receive the management letter of the audit company. Now that we have
an accountant, a CFO, a treasurer, an audit firm and a newly composed
audit committee, I hope that next year audit will be achieved rather
"quickly".
Sue will celebrate (?) her first year with us in June and her first year
as ED in november. Fall will be the time for assessing her job. And
probably assessing most of the policies and procedures she has
implemented in the past.
I'd love it if some input comes from community members and volunteers as
well. I mean... not necessarily the usual complaints that too much money
is being spent on travel, but slightly more constructive criticism such
as "what has the Foundation really done to support the Wikimedia
projects ? ". Have any of you guys considered helping/pushing to get an
annual report of some sort ?
Fall will be the time when the first Nomination Committee will provide a
list of candidates for appointment to the board. So, I expect
appointment will be part of fall agenda.
IF I were chair, I would suggest finding the time for a technical
strategy point in fall/winter. Perhaps the community could feel that an
interesting point to push. Perhaps the community would feel like
providing tech wish lists to the staff, and nicely request a technical
improvement timeline from the Foundation at some point in the future.
Hmmm. Okay, I am not pushing too much here ?
Last, I would suggest that new year 2009 be opened by a brand new
assessment of board performance, with individual assessment of each
board member, and individual set of measurable goals for the year.
Assessment which would not only help the general organization, but also
help the board members to feel really used for what they are good for,
AND be useful for board members and community to have a nice kick off
for the future elections in summer 2009.
I provided Véronique a few days ago, with an estimate of board-only
expenses. I planned 3 board meetings during the year (plus Wikimania).
So, one meeting at Wikimania.
One meeting in october/november (ED assesment, selection of new members,
audit/financial issues, fundraising strategy, review of policies and
procedures).
One meeting around January (Technical strategy, welcome new members,
start of board assessment, outreach strategy perhaps ?)
One meeting around April/May
Thank you for your attention. Feedback welcome.
Florence
Good morning,
I put this question 2 years ago. I know that some stats are now
available here
http://dammit.lt/wikistats/
Is is possible to use them for an academic paper?
>
>
>> Gregory Maxwell ha scritto:
>>> On 11/24/06, Antonio Gulli <gulli(a)di.unipi.it> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> are this information accessible for an academic research paper?
>>>> Thank you
>>>
>> Is wiki using apache web server or something equivalent server?
>> I was referring to the access.log file
>>> Sorry, we do not currently store this data because of the
>>> performance impact.
>>> We do, however, have plenty of data on editing.
>>>
>>> We also have some low quality sampled data on readership for some of
>>> our projects at:
>>>
>>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
This actually sounds like a good idea. Keeps Willy on Wheels from becoming Guillermo en Carro.
----- Original Message ----
From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:18:44 -0700
> From: saintonge(a)telus.net
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
>
> White Cat wrote:
> > You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
> >
> Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking
> in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems.
> Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends
> like you the proposal needs no enemies
> > The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to
> > the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive
> > user.
> >
> We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming
> good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he
> does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice
> list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of
> recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that
> those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import
> some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than
> vandals, spammers and trolls.
> > When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another
> > wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit
> > en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are
> > dealing with.
> > -- White Cat
> >
> The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts
> in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the
> user there, that is entirely their business.
>
> Ec
_________________________________________________________________
Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Mikael;
I can see a lot of promise in this idea. I think you should approach CDC with it though, because they would have the resources to make it more productive.
Sincerely;
Geoff
----- Original Message ----
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:52:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: A wiki where every article is a real medical case
From: Mikael Häggström <haggstrom.mikael(a)gmail.com>
> A proposal of a new Sister Project, called Wikisick is started.
> It is a wiki where every article is a real medical case. Basically,
> the victims of diseases write the symptoms and upload interactive
> media, and any medically interested person describes it.
Possibly redundant with existing non-Wikimedia projects:
http://askdrwiki.com/http://www.ganfyd.org/
Both of these restrict contribution to medical professionals,
presumably for quality of content.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mikael Häggström <haggstrom.mikael(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Subject: A wiki where every article is a real medical case
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Good day
A proposal of a new Sister Project, called Wikisick is started.
It is a wiki where every article is a real medical case. Basically,
the victims of diseases write the symptoms and upload interactive
media, and any medically interested person describes it.
See proposal details for Wikisick.
Best regards
Mikael Häggström
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com