Ladies and Gentlemen,
As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding
submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not
seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the
potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and
active election, the election committee has determined that:
- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC)
- The period for questioning candidates begins immediately.
Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized
by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to
actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning.
- The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on
28 July and end on 10 August.
Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the
schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did
not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be
interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates.
For the committee,
(in my capacity as a volunteer, and not as an employee of the
I am delighted to announce that the Facilitator for Wikimedia's
collaborative strategy development project will be Philippe Beaudette.
Many of you know Philippe, who is a trusted member of the Wikimedia
volunteer community. He's a three-year member of the Board of
Trustees Election Committee, a two-year trusted administrator for the
English Wikipedia, and has twice been granted temporary administrator
status for meta for election-related activities. He has also been a
volunteer for OTRS, where he successfully resolved some particularly
difficult complaints regarding biographies of living people. He also
helped the Wikimedia Foundation develop the “media upload” proposal
for the Ford Foundation, which resulted, a few weeks ago, in a USD
300,000 grant for a project aimed at streamlining the process for
uploading media to Wikimedia Commons.
Outside Wikimedia, Philippe has a background in American electoral
politics, where he has worked as Deputy Campaign Manager, Operations
Manager and Technology Director on a number of state and federal
campaigns, as well as for the non-profit Progressive Alliance
Foundation. He has also worked as a technology consultant in the
for-profit sector in the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Philippe brings a number of important skills to the Facilitator role.
He is experienced facilitating discussion on wikis, mailing lists,
IRC, face-to-face and using teleconferences. He has experience
understanding and successfully managing complex stakeholder networks.
And he has managed projects under tight timelines. Most importantly,
he has a good, rich understanding of the mechanisms and systems used
by Wikimedia volunteers to stage discussions, achieve consensus and
Philippe will work from his home in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and will report
to Eugene Eric Kim, the strategy plan project manager. He will start
Philippe will be a terrific addition to the team; I look forward to
working with him. Please join me in congratulating and welcoming him
to the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. And thanks again to Erik
Moeller and Jennifer Riggs for participating in the hiring interviews.
The strategy plan team will total three people: Project Manager Eugene
Eric Kim, Facilitator Philippe Beaudette, and a to-be-named Research
Analyst. I hope to be in a position to announce the Research Analyst,
within a few weeks.
415 839 6885 office
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
New list summaries for the past month:
I swear I'll try to get back on a bi-weekly schedule. Note: If anyone
wants to try their hand at summarizing some of the other lists, there
are lots of low-traffic project lists that could gain a bigger
audience if summarized.
Summary of the summary:
* license changes rolled out across all projects end of June;
* discussions about what Commons and Wikisource should be, as projects;
* two strategic planning hires (and a new open job) announced;
* new grant for Commons, new WMF financial plan and 3 new chapters;
* Wikitech discussions: templates, video codecs and browsers;
* lots of discussion about the NPG and GLAMs issues -- a special
section in this month's summary;
* miscellaneous: new sidebar donation buttons; grammar; Google
translate and image search; Wikipedians are grumpy; new Wikipedia
language; new PhD thesis on WP; WP & NIH workshop; Wikimania & flu;
how do you fully consult the community, anyway?
As many of you know, the Foundation has an Audit Committee which
represents the Board in oversight of financial and accounting
issues, including planning, reporting, audits, and internal
controls (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_committee
for details). The Committee typically serves for one year,
starting in May/June and ending a year later when the Foundation
files its annual tax return in the U.S. (the IRS Form 990). For
the past year, the committee has consisted of two Board members
(Michael Snow and me as Committee chair) and one long-serving and
incredibly helpful community member, Ad Huikeshoven. We've
recently started forming the 2009-2010 Audit Committee, and the
current team has generously agreed to serve another year.
We are keenly interested in increasing community participation.
The time commitment is modest, as far as Wikimedia goes: review
the Foundation's general financial practices and draft financial
statements/filings, and then participate in three or four
conference calls during the year with the staff and our
independent auditors, KPMG. The one requirement for membership
is "financial literacy", usually some kind of professional
experience with finance, accounting or audit.
If you're interested in serving on the Committee, please email us
at audit-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org and let us know how you think
you could contribute. Thanks.
Trustee & Board Treasurer
stu <mailto:email@example.com> <at> wikimedia.org
It seems like the attribution scheme chosen does not support small
interactive devices and systems very Well. Are there anyone who have
given this any thoughts?
The problem is basically as the chunk of information shrinks the
attribution scheme will be more and more of a problem. With the current
scheme the "paper leaflet" -problem are solved, still what do we do for
cell phones and similar devices? The same problem also arise for
solutions where excerpts from articles are used as tooltips in maps. I
guess there are a lot of other examples.
I would like a fourth point in the text that says something like
"attribution after good practice for devices and systems where the
previous isn't possible".
The current text reads: Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any
form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink
(where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a
hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy
which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which
provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit
given on this website, or c) a list of all authors.
I probably missed a few posts, but the way this is going raises some serious
questions. It would be helpfull if someone with good knowledge of English
Law would explain the risks of going trough the English Courts. I am a
lawyer, but not an English one. What I do know of the English Legal system
is that losing a lawsuit there is a very expensive excercise. And if this
thing goes to court there is a real chance that the Foundation will loose.
So a deal with NPG would be the sensible thing, and if a deal is not
possible deleting seems the better option.
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:02:26 +0100
From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
2009/7/18 John at Darkstar <vacuum(a)jeb.no>:
> Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model
> don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it
> and make the alternate options viable.
We do not have the capacity to raise sufficient funds to make it a
worthwhile business model.
Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
restoration into their curriculum. You'll be surprised how scaleable this
is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.