I was not calling you out as the only person doing this, you just happened
to be the most recent. Certainly we have a tradition in my country of
shortening names as well (or just adding the suffix -o or -za to them, so
that "John" becomes "Johnno" or "Barry" becomes "Bazza"), but I would never
presume to call you "B" or "Bério" or something like that without first
being invited to do so. In this case, Jan-Bart has made it abundantly
clear that he prefers to be called "Jan-Bart" and not some other name, so
we should leave it at that.
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:09:27 -0200
> From: B?ria Lima <berialima(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Gom? called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained.
> Everyone in Brazil calls me "B" (yah, just the first letter) and here is
> VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast
> than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this
> ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat
> people we really dislike by their last name).
> *B?ria Lima*
> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> On 15 February 2012 23:09, Craig Franklin <craig(a)halo-17.net> wrote:
> > I had wanted to keep out of this, but this is the third or fourth time
> > that Jan-Bart has been referred to as "Jan". It was an understandable
> > enough mistake to make the first time, but it's been pointed out
> > enough now that that is no longer an excuse. We do not all have to be
> > best of mates, but it is not unreasonable that we all should show some
> > basic courtesy towards each other, and taking the time to get each
> > other's names right would be a good start.
> > If you feel that Jan-Bart is being condescending towards you, the best
> > solution to that problem is not more condescension thrown back in the
> > opposite direction.
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> From: Florence Devouard <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID: <jhar77$4kl$1(a)dough.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
> > Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use
> > Wikimedia marks ?
> > Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
> > I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten
> > to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and
> > mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
> Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this
> decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore
> except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within
> the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept
> redondant with partner organizations.
> I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new
models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I
wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to
join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help
unfolding that kind of mess.
> But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the
> difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to
> better see what the difference is ?
I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from
my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences
come from 3 parameters:
a)Registered organizations / Informal groups
b)Geography focused / Non geography focused
c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that
Then the classification comes like this:
1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia
2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia
3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia
4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other
So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to
be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a
registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term
Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better)
> For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a
> partner or an affiliate ?
> Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible.
First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later
they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for
Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably
they can fit in the Partner Organization model.
You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them
to participate in Wikilovemsonuments. I think Partner Organization can
be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They
were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only
interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and
same freedom than any body else.
They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested
in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to
support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same
freedom you have to promote French ones.
 Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their
participation because they were not a chapter and others including them.
Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy:
See below for a great presentation of problems in conducting outreach
events and wiki workshop by Nitika Tandon.
It discusses events in India, but most of it is relevant for the whole world.
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nitika <ntandon(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] Improving outreach efforts in India
To: Wikimedia India Community list firstname.lastname@example.org
The following is a post I've put up on the India Program page on meta
regarding outreach (Please
Please do comment on the page itself; I'm posting it on this mailing
list only to make sure it doesn't slip your attention.
We have conducted over 13 outreach sessions in the past one month and
have many more events scheduled to participate in over the coming
weeks. (Please see:
It's amazing that we're doing so many outreach events all over the
country to create awareness about Wikipedia, motivate attendees to
learn about editing and training newbies to contribute to Wikipedia in
their own special way.
The single biggest challenge is that we don't know the actual outcome
of these efforts in most cases, and the results are weak when we have
the data. I think most of us agree that outreach can be made to work
better. (For example, 2 outreach sessions conducted recently by the
Assamese community had about 80 participants, and 8 active editors
emerged - which is a hit rate of 10% - which is FANTASTIC!) For most
other sessions, the results have been closer to 1-2% or even lower -
which is depressing. What makes outreach work? How can outreach work
better? Is there anything you need from me?
Over the past 3 months, I have been working on building a handbook for
Outreach (Please see:
where you can get presentation material and tips. Please do go through
it and help me build it.
My post consists of 5 (deliberately) provocative statements on the day
of and the days after an outreach session. These are framed with the
objective of generating debate and suggestions.
THE DAY OF
Hypthesis 1: Don't Shoot the Puppy: Outreach is not being done
effectively and we aren't adequately introspecting on what we can do
better; instead choosing to lose faith in attendees
Should we discontinue general introduction sessions completely and
just convert everything into Wiki workshops? Every second of volunteer
time is precious and we need to make sure that every second is made to
count. The good sessions appear to be those where people are actually
shown how to edit - rather than just doing a song-and-dance about
The best sessions are those where people have actual hands-on editing
opportunity. Shall we limit the intro session on Wikipedia to just 15
minutes and then spend 45 minute on basic editing, 30 minutes on
hand-on editing and leave 30 minutes for Q&A?
Not everyone is a natural presenter and might need help on basic
outreach skills. Is there value and interest in a capacity building
roadshow where we help existing editors who want to improve their
outreach and presentation skills? Is it useful to pair up a good
presenter with a not-so-confident presenter when we are doing
THE DAY AFTER
Hypothesis #2: Staying in Touch: We assume the job is complete after
the outreach session when in fact the journey has only just begun
Can we gather (basic) information about attendees (e.g., names,
usernames & email IDs?) so that we can stay in touch with them after
Can we get feedback on sessions (duration, level of detail, quality of
presenters, etc.?) so that we can all improve? Do we need some sort of
CRM solution for this or will something like Google Docs suffice?
How do we get more folks to actually provide their contact details and
feedback? Which of the following will get higher response rates:
asking for these just before the end, immediately after the end or the
day after a session?
Hypothesis #3: Nudge-Nudge: Newbies struggle with the most basic
things - including which article to select
Should we send links to useful wiki pages and tutorial videos where
they can read up more about how Wikipedia works and how to edit
Wikipedia? Can we leave handouts on basic editing after all sessions?
Can we send them links to the actual presentations made at the
Can we suggest / elicit potential articles that individual newbies
will work on after the workshop? Can we give them individual pointers
on what they can do with each article by reviewing them there-and-then
during the session?
Can we schedule a follow-up session (even if virtually using google+
hangout) to clarify any doubts about Wikipedia editing or otherwise -
maybe 2 weeks after a session?
Hypothesis #4: Loneliness - Newbies feel alone and the only time they
sense the community is when their edits get reverted
Should we not encourage them to join project pages (such as the
WP:INDIA) and/or the India mailing list and/or their city/language
mailing list to get involved with the community?
Can we involve them in COTM or conduct specific editathons for them?
Can we celebrate their successes and get newbies to talk to other
newbies about how they learnt stuff?
Hyptothesis #5: Black Hole: No one has a clue about the actual results
Can we regularly monitor number & % of active editors after 1 and 3
months of conducting all events? Can we figure out % of mainspace
edits from these newbies after 1 and 3 months? Can this be analysed to
provide recommendations on how we can do things better?
Can we actively reach out to those who look like they are struggling?
Do we need a CRM tool for something like this?
Is it useful to track and attempt to co-relate age / profession /
subject (if student) / sex of participants to figure out what is
likely to give greatest results?
I have been working to see how can we overcome these challenges and
make our outreach efforts far more effective. I'd love to hear from on
the above. Some of you have been actively involved in outreach
sessions (attending or conducting or planning) an I'd like to know
your thoughts and suggestions which might serve as solutions for this
set of very real challenges.
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
Just to provide some background to my previous mail and left clear that
there is not offensive intention.
In Spanish the cemetery is a well known metaphor for the difficulties of
reforming universities and educational systems. For example in Uruguay:
Headline says: EDUCATIONAL REFORM:
"... difficult as reforming cemeteries can not be counted
with much help from those inside. "
I chose this example because I hope somebody will like the picture.
It is not a problem of lack of time or lack of communication channels. It
is a problem of lack of participation of chapters and fear of change.
These proposals have been in meta for months.  The answer to many of the
questions raised here have been in meta for months. 
The problem is that it is very difficult to reform a cemetery if you need
the participation of inmates and even more if when you're about to decide
then all of them suddenly resurrect to oppose.
The movement roles group has worked and made his proposal. It has members
that also are active in chapters who were well aware of chapter’s needs and
sensitivity. I think that from the beginning the chapters have been afraid
to change and believed that it was they who had the authority to decide or
at least to block any decision. That’s why IMO they have not felt the need
to participate and that’s why they now raise their voice with thousand
arguments to block the decision.
In theory and to some extent I could agree with chapters that creating any
new model is their death. (particularly the dead of dorment or inactive
chapters) But in practice things are exactly the reverse. Wikimedia Spain
 is the best evidence that having other organizations in the same
territory is highly healthy for chapters. Although while these
organizations are not formally recognized and there are no mechanisms for
communication and coordination between them and the chapters there will be
misunderstandings and inconveniences.
I think that many participants in this debate are not grasping what
decision we are talking about. We are not proposing the creation of new
organizations. We are not deciding whether there will be new organizations
that compete with chapters or not. The creation of new models and new
organizations is not in our hands. In many countries in the world there is
freedom of association and those new models and organizations may perfectly
appear. They don’t need our approval. What we are deciding here is whether
we want to create channels of communication and cooperation with these new
models and encourage them to appear or if we give them back and tries to
discourage more people joining to promote free knowledge.
I think Florence and Lodewijk have understood. But while the proposal of
Florence seems to me that leads us to give them back by creating two sides
with the WMF and the new institutions in one and chapters in the other the
proposal of Lodewijk leads to create mechanisms to ensure that we have
I like more the proposal of Lodewijk. I also have given my view to the
questions Achal so kindly had the patience to collect in meta. 
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:41:49 +0100
> From: Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID: <268BD4B0-7E6F-43FE-BCC6-03B486877091(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Hi Ziko and Lodewijk,
> Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved
> in these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came
> out of the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve
> these recommendations.
> It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
> fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of
> "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we need to increase the
> different kinds of organisation methods that we support.
> But lets take the time to discuss the content of this proposal. If that
> means we need to take an extra month, so be it (would be my personal
> opinion) and make sure that we end up with something that is a marked
> improvement on the current situation. And we might have to refine it in the
> coming years (as we will have to do with most of the things we are trying
> to settle at this point :)
> Thanks for your constructive feedback!
The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community:
The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing
rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the
size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the
movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of different groups working within our international
movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process.
We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized
as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new
models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted
on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We
encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10
March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28
Posted on Meta at:
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our
movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of
Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with
Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography.
Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the
Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and
would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission
aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other
topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must
reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks
for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use
a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established
contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia
trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new
association can be formed by listing its information in a public place,
and confirming their contact information. An association contact can
sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in
the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the
movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the
marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and
collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated
groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to
include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of
procedure to cover:
* recognizing all group models
* mentoring chapters and partner organiations
* reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be
effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15
June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
* [[wmf:Audit charter]]
* [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]]
* [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]]
Member of the Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
It’s with great pleasure that I’m announcing that Terrence (Terry) Chay is
joining the Wikimedia Foundation as Director of Features Engineering.
Terry comes to us from Automattic, where he helped improve the
WordPress.com user experience by implementing an A/B testing framework,
improving the blog domain name registration process (which contributed to
doubling the revenue for WordPress.com), creating better support mechanisms
for fist-time users, and making many other changes. In that role, he was an
individual contributor to the WordPress codebase.
Before Automattic, Terry worked as an engineering manager and software
architect for multiple start-ups and tech companies between 1999 and 2009,
most recently at Tagged and Plaxo. He has a B.S. in Physics from the
California Institute of Technology and an M.S. in Physics from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC).
If you’ve ever been to OSCON, you may have seen Terry present one of his
infamous PHP talks there (he’s been invited back repeatedly for some
reason). All in, he’s given more than 25 public talks about web
development. He’s also a prolific blogger and photographer (
http://terrychay.com/ ), joining the nascent photography cabal at Wikimedia.
As Director of Features Engineering, Terry will be responsible for helping
ensure the success of some of our key feature teams: the visual editor
team, the editor engagement team (including the article feedback project),
and the fundraising engineering team.
This announcement also means that Alolita Sharma will be transitioning into
a new director-level role at the Wikimedia Foundation. While we’ve not
finalized all details, the role will include responsibility for the
internationalization team, for experimental features projects and
technology evaluation. We’ll announce details about that shortly. I want to
thank Alolita for her track record of excellent leadership at Wikimedia
Terry's first day will be February 27. Please join me in welcoming Terry to
the Wikimedia movement. :-)
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
I went through the lists and collated a bunch of questions that have been
asked (without identifying who has asked these).
I have put them on the talk page of the MR letter, so that we can
systematically start considering and addressing them. This is the link:
I would be most obliged if you would go through these, add your thoughts,
and more questions that need answering.
I have yet to put up questions on the proposed Affiliations Committee, but
feel free to add these too.