{{Crossposting}}
Dear all,
>From June 8, Wikimedia Mexico will co-produce "Möebius" a weekly radio
program in Ibero 90.9 FM [1], one of the trendsetter media in Mexico City. The
creative concept of the program is to find two topics allegedly disconnected
, but united by four or five Wikipedia articles, with a sound design that will
reinforce the concept.
It has been several months of planning the concept, which will serve to
further spread our mission in Mexico, thanks our GLAM partnering with the
Universidad Iberoamericana and their radio station, Ibero 90.9 FM.
This program will be conducted by Almendra Hernández, Carmen Alcázar and me. We
will upload the audios for those wishing to listen to them, so you can practice
your Spanish :)
Best regards.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHUIA-FM
--
*Atentamente:
Iván Martínez
Presidente
Wikimedia México A.C.
wikimedia.mx
Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta pueda tener acceso libre
a la suma total del conocimiento humano.
Eso es lo que estamos haciendo <http://es.wikipedia.org>. *
Hi, Lodewijk!
2013/6/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>:
> Hi Patricio,
>
> thank you for your quick reply.
>
> I checked the link you provided, and I understood that to be a message on
> behalf of the two board observers, not so much the outcome of a discussion
> of the full board. But maybe that is my mistake, and this message was
> indeed after discussion of the full board, made on behalf of the full
> board. Basically, I'm trying to understand a little better who's "we" in
> the various occasions.
>
> This confuses me because I understand from the descriptions on meta [1]
> that the report of the ombudsperson is supposed to be presented to the
> (full) board together with the FDC recommendation, which suggests to me
> that it would be considered at the same time as well, rather than by the
> board observers/representatives themselves. From your answer to the first
> question this isn't entirely clear - I hope you can clarify.
>
> I hope you will understand that this is not so much to frustrate the
> process or change the outcome (I doubt it would have an impact), but to
> clarify the process for the future, and clarify who exactly makes what
> decision and based on what. In my understanding it would be the full board
> (through its 31 May resolution) to decide on the way the appeal is
> responded to formally, and not the two board representatives.
The answer comes from the Board representatives at the FDC but
obviously it reflects an ongoing discussion of the full Board. I agree
with you that the framework should be clearer at this point, and we
(in this case "we" means Board and staff) will work to make it more
accurate.
>
> If the appeal report was part of the considerations of the board, it would
> have made sense to me to refer to it in the resolution. Also it would make
> sense to me if there was a link tot he appeal and the report following that
> appeal on [2], but that is mostly a matter of convenience and having the
> information together of course.
Yes, you are right, and perhaps that is my fault. I thought that
anyone who was following this issue would know that report in advance.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Patricio
--
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
Hi, Lodewijc!
2013/6/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>:
[...]
>
> Basically my questions are:
> * Did the board formally consider the complaints filed through this process
> or does that process stop at the ombudsperson?
Yes, in fact the Board representatives at the FDC posted a formal
answer after receiving the ombudsperson report [1].
> * If yes, what was the decision on that and why was it not communicated in
> the resolution?
As you can find in our answer, we decided to support the FDC
recommendation. There's a full explanation there about why we decided
that way.
> * Are links to the complaints intentionally made scarce on meta or is this
> an oversight for example because this is the first time such complaints
> have been filed?
As with the previous question, I think you are making this one because
you missed our formal answer to the complaint, which, by the way, was
inmediately communicated to the Chapter's representatives. But anyway,
if you have any idea that could improve the whole process, we will be
happy to consider it.
Thank you,
Patricio
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommen…
--
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
Dear members of the Wikimedia community,
As you know, on April 28, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) made
its Round 2 funding recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees. [1]
>From the four proposals that were submitted in this round, the FDC
recommended that two of these movement entities receive a total of
$665,000 USD: they recommended $140,000 USD to Wikimedia Norge and
$525,000 USD to Wikimédia France.
I am pleased to share with you the news that the Board of Trustees has
made the decision to approve the FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding
recommendations. [2] These funding recommendations will now be
implemented by the Foundation.
Many members of our community provided significant and thoughtful
input during Round 2. We would like to thank the Round 2 applicants,
the Funds Dissemination Committee members and staff, the ombudsperson,
and the members of the community who participated in the review
period.
We have learned much from this inaugural year of the FDC process, and
we look forward to hearing from you about your experience. The WMF
learning and evaluation team will be reaching out to those that
participated in the process to collect feedback through surveys, and
the ombudsperson will be collecting feedback as well. Learning
collected through these processes will be shared in a report.
Again, we thank you all for your dedication and commitment to this
funding process.
Best,
Patricio Lorente, Board Representative to the FDC
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou…
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Board_decisions/2012-2013_round2
--
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente