Hi,
On Sunday next week there will be an "open Sunday" with talks and
sessions, organized by Wikimedia Deutschland. [1]
As a Board member I take the chance to offer a session to "Ask your
WMF Board member". I collect questions in advance of this meeting, add
them to the questions in the meeting and publish the answers
afterwards.
If you have questions for me, maybe especially addressed to me as one
of the Chapters selected Board members, please feel free to add them
[2].
Probably I'm not able to answer all the questions because they are for
example part of the ED's job or because they relate to an area of
interest where other Board members know better. Then it may take a
little bit longer to get the answer, but the question will be heard.
I'm interested in what interests you and it would be wonderful to have
a wider range of questions including those of Chapters and individuals
from all over the movement.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Offener_Sonntag
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Offener_Sonntag#Frag_…
Thanks,
Alice.
I agree that patience is a very important virtue in some situations, such as when we coach newbies or seek consensus among many people. But it's sometimes not a virtue, such as in many crisis situations. As a metrics and performance enthusiast, I feel that it's possible to have an appropriate mix of patience and impatience, and people should be appropriately accountable for their performance.
Pine
Hi all,
I am happy to let you know that the Affiliations Committee's Annual Report
for 2012 has now been published on Meta at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_committee/Reports/2012, giving
a glance into the internal workings of the Committee's last year.
It was prepared in order to update the WMF Board on Trustees on the
Committee's work and to provide a snapshot and record of what happened in
the year, especially as we have transitioned to refreshing the membership
of the Committee every year and it is our commitment to continuously
improve our practices, which require good documentation.
I hope you will find the report useful. As noted on the page, it includes
information up till 31 December 2012 and life has not stopped either inside
or outside of the Committee, we have made headway on many of the
bottlenecks and challenges of last year and I am happy with where the
Committee is at right now, even though this year is facing up to be a busy
one.
Any questions, or feedback are welcome, especially as we are still
experimenting with reporting format, content, and the level of detail.
Best regards,
Bence Damokos
Chair, Affiliations Committee
I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are now being accepted for
the 2013 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year, elections are being
held for the following roles:
-
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately
responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value
wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled.
More information about this role can be found at <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Board_el…>.
-
Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee
(FDC)<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_…>makes
recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia
movement <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia> funds to eligible
entities. There are two positions being filled. More information about
this role can be found at <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_elec…>.
-
Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process,
investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and
summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an
annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this
role can be found at <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_Ombu…>.
The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 24 to 23:59 UTC
May 17. More
information on this election can be found at <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013>.
Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village
pump, or to translate it and distribute it on other Wikimedia movement
mailing lists. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the
talk page
on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list,
<board-elections AT wikimedia.org>
On behalf of the Election Committee,
Risker
Hello!
As many of you know, the Wikimedia Foundation is now actively engaged in designing a next-generation discussion and workflow system called Flow, initially slated to replace user talk pages. Flow is an ambitious project (on par with the VisualEditor) and will touch nearly every aspect of the Wikimedia experience.
We need ''your'' help and input. We have started a portal for information and discussion.
You can find it on the English Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flow
And on MediaWiki here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal
(We'll be creating one on meta as well).
At the Flow portal, you can read about what we're doing and why, as well as play around with an interactive prototype.
We're desperately interested in your feedback and thoughts. There are things that we know, and things that we know that we don't know. But there are also things that we *don't* know that we don't know. And we want to reduce that lack of knowledge.
We will also be conducting additional office hours for a variety of timezones - as many as we need to - and will also be open to having conversations via Google hangouts and/or Skype as need be. I am always around on irc (freenode, username "jorm") and am willing to answer any questions you may have.
-b.
---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hello all,
The 2012 fundraiser report is up on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/report
We are currently working on a separate report with the results from our A/B
tests (from 2012 as well as previous years).
If you have questions or comments, please leave them on the report talk
page.
Thanks,
Megan
--
Megan Hernandez
Head of Annual Fundraiser
Wikimedia Foundation
I've started a new thread to step back from the long thread, and look
forward towards something that I think we need - or might want - to do.
This is not at all the first time of clumsy handling, or conflicting
actions and perceptions, leading to tensions and drama between the editing
community and foundation. There are some common themes.
As noted by Sue and others, WMF and the community may have different
low-level priorities and motivators. They have a different structure and
legal context. There are different scales and kinds of consequences
possible. Even when contemplating the same issue, the processes and input
of both may be equally valid but diverge a lot. Last, even when a WMF
matter is valid or chosen diligently, the communication aspects of
transparency, consultation, and mutual respect can be missing, and it may
be perceived as very or grossly inappropriate or a breach of unspoken
etiquette.
*This has added heat and fuel to many incidents over many years. Not just
one or a few matters. It benefits nobody that we give no guidance to reduce
or (if able) avoid these confrontations in future, and no one part of the
wider Community can draft such guidance in isolation. *I think it's time
we addressed it head on.
I would like to call on WMF and the Community (in its broadest sense) to
set out terms, and organize, a formal consultation, to answer these
questions:
1. *What expectations and needs do the Volunteer Community, Chapters,
and WMF, have of each other?*
2. *What guidance and guidelines can we agree upon*, that can be given
to new staff at WMF/Chapters, or referenced by anyone in the Movement, to
understand how to recognize and deal with situations that may impinge on
other parts of the Movement?
3. *In particular, what best practices or necessities can be outlined
for someone* wishing to broach, consult, and progress an proposal or
action that may be seen as "unexpected" by a subset of the Movement, and,
if there must for operational/legal purposes be a "done deal", how do we
collectively concur these (hopefully uncommon) cases should be approved,
handled, and discussed/communicated?
I would like the outcome to be a *living document*, like any other major
policy, that can be used to *understand how to reduce friction*, and *"best
practices" and understandings of viewpoints, within different parts of our
Movement*, and thereby ensuring everyone involved is more aware of these
aspects and of "best practices" in working with other areas and "subgroups"
in our Community.
I'd note that policies often contain nuances and don't always imply a
single fixed answer exists. Their aim is to reduce the areas of discord,
even if it can't be eliminated, by outlining what is mandatory, or
preferred, or good practice, or unacceptable, or may be important to know.
I see the result as being a policy of that kind.
I'd note also that although mainly considering WMF and the volunteer
community, it's worth addressing broadly, because other movement
"subgroups" can also have internal decisions capable of this kind of
problem. For example, and in principle, OTRS administrators might one day
make a unilateral decision to limit or alter some aspect of how OTRS and
its team operates, a chapter might make a clumsy or ill-conceived choice
affecting WMF or editorial aspects in a given country, or a
computer/data/system administrator may make a decision about computer
matters, as well. There may be useful guidance applicable to others in the
movement.
FT2
[pardon the cross-post]
Hello everyone,
*This is a reminder that there are 2 days left to apply to attend the first
Program Evaluation & Design Workshop, which will take place in Budapest,
June 22-23. Applications close at 12 AM PST May 17.*
Please review this recent blog announcing the event:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/09/program-evaluation-workshop-budapest/
*Wikimedia community members, chapter staff/volunteers, solitary volunteers
- anyone who is a program leader is encouraged to apply. Please note, we
have only 20 slots available and limited funding to support attendees. If
you do apply, you must email me at sarah(a)wikimedia.org if you are
requesting funding before/after you apply. *
We will be filming our workshop, so don't fret if you cannot attend this
first one, or aren't accepted to attend this time.
*You can get a better taste for the event through our evolving Meta Event
page: *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_Evaluation_and_Design/June_2013_Work…
Thank you Wikimedia Magyarország for your support and assistance.
-Sarah
--
*Sarah Stierch**
Wikimedia Foundation Program Evaluation & Design Community Coordinator
*Donate<http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Donate/en&utm_source=&utm_…>
today
and keep it free!
Visit me on Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>!