to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
- Visual Editor
- Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
- Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
- Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
- Editor Engagement Experiments
- Visual Editor
- Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
- Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
- Funds Dissemination Committee
We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
metrics meetings , since the team(s) will give a presentation on
their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
which we can use to discuss the concept further:
The internal review will, at minimum, include:
Team members and relevant director(s)
So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
- Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
compared with goals
- Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
- Review of challenges, blockers and successes
- Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
- Buffer time, debriefing
Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
help inform and support reviews across the organization.
Feedback and questions are appreciated.
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
While watching the current changes to Wikimedia France microgrants program
implemented, I was curious to know which Wikimedia entities had similar
funding programs for individuals - how they worked, how we could learn form
Since apparently there was no Meta page for that(tm) (yet!) I went ahead and
I dug my information out of my email archives and FDC proposal forms, so I
could totally have missed some programs - please add the ones you know
Of course, it would be more useful to have more detailed information on
Together with Caroline & Pierre-Selim we threw some ideas on what we
thought was interesting to know about the programs, but that's still very
alpha - please add more ideas!
Looking forward to your thoughts about this!
this is to inform you that in response to the trademarking of the
Wikimedia community logo, created in 2006 by Artur “WarX”
Fijałkowski, which was discussed on this mailing list as well as on
Meta back in March, a small group of community members—Artur, myself,
Federico Leva (Nemo) and John Vandenberg—have initiated a formal process
of opposition against the registration of the trademark by the
Foundation in order to *reclaim the logo* for unrestricted use by the
We appreciate the Foundation’s protection of the other trademarks they
have registered so far, including the logos of Wikipedia, Wikisource and
some other sister projects. In the case of the community logo, however,
it is our belief that the Foundation’s actions are exactly opposite to
what the community logo stands for and contradict the purpose behind its
We would like to make it clear that it is not our intention to damage
anyone; our actions are a challenge against what we perceive as
unilateral declaration of ownership of an asset that has always belonged
to the wider community, and not to one or another organisation that is
part of the movement. By formally opposing the registration of the
trademark we hope to ensure the history of this logo is not disregarded,
and we wish to protect the community against unnecessary bureaucracy
and, to use another quote, let “groups who do not purport to represent
the WMF” to continue to be able to freely associate with a logo that
has been part of their identity for so long.
We also want to note that this is in no way a legal action against the
Foundation, but a simple notice of opposition against the registration
of the logo in the European Union. If we assume good faith, we can only
be confident that the WMF, having now a formal occasion, will withdraw
its registration of the logo rather than continue using movement
resources to force the community into lengthy, expensive proceedings.
We invite all community members interested in this issue to express
their opinions at:
If any of you would like to help us in any way (covering the costs of
the opposition, promoting the discussion, etc.), please feel free to
contact us off–list.
Artur Fijalkowski (WarX)
Tomasz Kozlowski (odder)
Federico Leva (Nemo)
John Vandenberg (jayvdb)
== References ==
*  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
*  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo
for those of you who do not watch the RecentChanges on the Foundation
wiki <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges>, I
think it might be somehow surprising to see that in a top-level
decision, almost all volunteer administrators of the wiki have been
stripped off their adminship yesterday evening (UTC time).
As far as I know, community members have been helping out maintaining
this wiki for as long as 2006, spending countless hours of their free
time on categorising existing pages, importing translations from Meta,
and recently, deleting unnecessary and broken pages left over by WMF staff.
Apparently, this is something that not only isn't appreciated, but
unwelcome. Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help
out with running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost
since the very start of the wiki.
Some questions come to my mind right now:
1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community members?
(I'm assuming it was Gayle, but it could've be someone from the
Communications department for all we know.)
2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed?
3) Why did you decide to desysop people straight away instead of
discussing things with them first?
These are questions directed at the WMF—for you regular folks, I have a
riddle (I'll give a WikiLove barnstar to the first person to submit a
correct answer). There is /at least/ one community member who does not
hold any official position within the WMF, and who has not been
desysopped in yesterday's purge—do you know who this person is?
> I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently
> achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated
> would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core
> -- ã¨ããç½ãç« (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors...
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
October 3, 2013 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
#wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as
a live YouTube stream.
The current structure of the meeting is:
* Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
specialized reports and analytic
* Review of financials
* Welcoming recent hires
* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority
* Update and Q&A with the Executive Director, if available
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about how to participate.
We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering and Product Development
+1 (415) 839 6885 ext. 6689
Dear Wikimedia friends,
following up on the emails Asaf and I sent a few weeks ago, I have now
drafted the bidding process to decide upon the location for next
year’s Wikimedia Conference. This event will not only host the annual
Chapters’/Affiliates’ conference, but also the WMF board, FDC and
AffCom meetings and is meant to take place in April 2014 (tbc).
== LOCATION COMMITTEE ==
I would like to see a small location committee (3 representatives of
affiliates, 1 AffCom and 1 WMF) to decide about the hosting chapter.
Asaf and Bence already agreed upon joining the committee, and it would
be nice to see someone from WMIT there, as they have the freshest
experience. So if you have severe experience with conference
organisation, please consider joining the committee now!
== WANNA HOST WMCON 2014? ==
All chapters who are interested in organising the conference in 2014
are invited to place a short bid on Meta. The bids should be made
until 30 September, a decision should be available before 15 October.
The winning organisation will be responsible for all the logistics, as
in: venue, catering, travel and visa arrangements, accommodation,
technical equipment, social events, communication with and support for
the participants, coordination with the programme committee and the
I hope that if we can take the logistics and location for granted,
this will help us focus on the content and sustainability of the
event. I have written more about the programme part on Meta.
Thanks to Asaf and Bence for giving their valuable input to the set-up
of this process. Since WMDE has kind of a traditional interest in
having a good conference, I am happy to take a leading role in
organising this process. Any help is highly appreciated! I am looking
forward to an exciting Wikimedia Conference 2014. \o/
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons. It took some time to
add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence
If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read this
expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.
If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the
link or re-share with this full version.
I welcome discussion and questions.
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Hi, just a heads up about http://fosdem.org - Brussels 1 & 2 Feb 2014.
One of the biggest and coolest grassroots open source events in the
World - and the main one in Europe.
European orgs and individuals loving software freedom: Wikimedia wants
to have a stand. Let's do something cool! Get involved.
Discussion better at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Events/FOSDEM or
PS: read below
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FOSDEM update
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:39:58 -0700
From: Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi, about FOSDEM - https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Events/FOSDEM
Brussels / 1 & 2 February 2014
On 1 Oct we will know whether our proposal for a Wiki DevRoom has been
accepted or not. This is a DevRoom we have proposed together with XWiki
and TikiWiki and is open to all wiki topics. If we we get it accepted we
will organize a call for participation for this DevRoom.
The call for main track session proposals is open until 1 Oct.
... and the call for lightning talks and stands is open until 20 Nov.
You are encouraged to submit lightning talk proposals! Don worry if you
are unsure between submitting a session for a lightning talk or a
devroom: you can contact both and then they suggest you what to do.
Wikimedia wants to have a stand, and we have received an offer to help
from the nascent Wikimedia Belgium chapter. Probably more help can be
aggregated from CH, DE, FR, NL, UK + other tech contributors in the
region? Let's do something really cool! To be discussed.
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation