We’re proposing to change the schedule of the Foundation’s monthly public
Metrics meeting. We plan to move the meeting to the final Thursday of each
month, in order to better align these important presentations with the
Foundation’s regular data production cycles. This will result in a three
week delay for February’s meeting as we move to a new cycle.
As many know, the Foundation’s monthly Metrics meeting is an open,
hour-long series of presentations on key data related to the projects,
highlights of Foundation and community projects and achievements, research
and product demos, and other updates on Foundation operations. The meeting
is livestreamed and recorded, and open to public participation on IRC.
Currently, the Foundation’s Metrics meeting is held the first Thursday of
each month. However, most of our data for the preceding month isn’t
actually available until mid-month. For example, it may take until
mid-January to process data from December, and at that point, the January
Metrics meeting has already taken place. As a result, we end up presenting
December data in February, with up to six weeks delay.
By moving the Metrics meeting to the last Thursday of the month, Foundation
departments will be able to prepare their presentations using the most
recent data available, and align on a more consistent cycle.
The Foundation is planning to implement this change for February. The first
meeting to be affected will be the planned February 4th meeting, which will
be moved to February 25th. Our next step is to update this schedule in
public venues. The Foundation will continue to send a monthly invitation
and reminder, and post the full Metrics presentation and video, aligned
with the new cycle.
Many thanks to the Analytics and Finance teams for raising this issue and
proposing the change.
It's now two weeks since Wikipedia Day, marking a global celebration of the
birth of the Wikimedia movement fifteen years ago. Almost 150 events,
parties and gatherings were listed on the Wikipedia 15 page on Meta
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15> to take place over the
weekend. How did they go?
We'd love to see your photos and outcomes from your events. For this, I've
created a page on Meta: Wikipedia 15/Scrapbook
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Scrapbook>. Feel free to add
pictures, edit-a-thon outputs, and so on.
We're excited to see what you've all been up to!
Communications Intern [remote]
joesutherland.rocks | @jrbsu <http://twitter.com/jrbsu> | +44 (0) 7722 916
Congratulations for the Italian community!
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Laurentius <laurentius.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Date: 29/01/2016 05:36 (GMT+07:00)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Italia recognized as OpenStreetMap chapter
after a long process, today Wikimedia Italia has been officially
recognized as the Italian OpenStreetMap chapter!
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project that shares the same value as
the Wikimedia movement. It's not based on a wiki software and it's not
in the Wikimedia family, but from many points of views, it's the project
that is more similar to the Wikimedia ones; indeed, many wikipedians are
mappers also, and viceversa.
Similarly to Wikimedia, there is an OpenStreetMap Foundation (based in
the UK) and there are national OpenStreetMap chapters. In Italy, the
OpenStreetMap community has been talking for years about the creation of
a chapter. Most people felt that it was important, but also that
founding yet another association was pointless. Associations are not
built only on projects, but also, and mainly, on common values and on a
common vision: Wikimedia and OpenStreetMap share both, and it's just
natural to work together.
Wikimedia Italy officially started the process of becoming an
OpenStreetMap chapter in 2013 . The association has supported
OpenStreetMap even before that (e.g., supporting the Italian
OpenStreetMap conference), and in the last two years, thanks also to the
work of many OpenStreetMap users that became members (and among them,
Simone Cortesi, OpenStreetMap volunteer since the beginning and WMI's
vicepresident), we have increased our efforts (as described also in
WMI's annual plan ). The recognition process has been quite long, but
today we've signed the chapters agreement, and now Italy is the second
country (after Iceland) to have an official OpenStreetMap chapter! (but
there are actually other unofficial chapters besides these two)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board
are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their
expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and
people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and
we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Board of Trustees
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing
the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred
the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying
around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that,
throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices
evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments
were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting
to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that
has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
contributors, and users.
As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I
passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the
community and even the most energetic community members come from a place
of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best
intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Whether or not the decision against having a membership system was legal, reversing that decision would be a timely and practical way for the WMF to start to reengage with the community.
Past concerns that a membership system would require staff are now moot - we have staff.
Past concerns as to where one sets the membership fee are now moot - we can afford to waive the fee for those who contribute time. I'm not really keen on the idea of selling any memberships, but it would be good if we could award membership to some of the professors, museum curators, librarians, archivists and others who help our mission without necessarily editing much themselves.
Past concerns about privacy are easier to resolve as we now have a structure of chapters and they include ones in countries with very strict privacy laws. So we can have a federal membership system with chapters holding the membership details in specific countries, and anyone suing the WMF to get the membership details of someone who'd blocked them for spamming would then find that all the WMF knew was someone's username - membership details would be held by an independent legal entity in a country with strict privacy laws.
A Membership based system would give more protection for community elected trustees.
A membership based organisation would formally be a global not for profit at the intersection of education, culture, free knowledge and open licensing; not a Silicon Valley tech entity.
A membership based organisation would have better defences against being "commercialised".
>> Dear friends,
>> Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia
>> Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization. The
>> revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a
>> recommendation for appointment rather than a direct vote seem to have been
>> a surprise to many of us, and almost ten years after membership was
>> eliminated, we see strongly suggestive "directly elected" language still
>> being fixed on the Foundation's own Board elections page.
>> It turns out that this history is colorful, the Foundation was a membership
>> organization from 2003-2006 and Board seats were indeed, originally,
>> intended to be directly elected by member-Wikimedians. It seems that the
>> membership issue was never quite resolved. I've put some of my notes on
>> metawiki, please forward to any wiki historians who might be interested in
>> throwing their weight on a shovel.
>> As a current WMF staff member, and having received a formal scolding two
>> weeks ago for expressing my professional and personal opinions on this
>> list--that a hierarchical corporate structure is completely inappropriate
>> and ineffectual for running the Foundation--I don't feel safe
>> editorializing about what membership could mean for the future of the
>> Wikimedia movement. But I would be thrilled to see this discussion take
>> place, and to contribute however I am able.
>> A note to fellow staff: Anything you can say about this history is most
>> likely protected speech under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, since we're asking
>> whether state and federal laws were violated.
>> In solidarity,
>> Adam Wight
I appreciate that you have responded to the community outcry, though I
fear that the flowery rhetoric was not only lost on me, it also seems
to be obfusacting on the serious matters raised. The substantial
matters themselves rated a direct mention or a skerrick of
I believe that the community has clearly expressed that while you may
have a significant HR/P&C background, the dark shadow that you drag
into the Wikimedia is not one which a sizeable proportion of
interested and knowledgeable participants believes outweighs a clear,
untarnished integrity 
>From your people management background, you cannot seriously have us
And you may be the fall guy / scapegoat / ...for the board's
short-sighted appointment / inexacting process / evident lack of
diligence; however, that may be the role that you need to take so that
the Board can get the clear air to regain the trust that it has lost.
Until that time we peasants may well be revolting. Who knows, this
time maybe we can create a white-out, rather than a black-out.
Risk-denial, risk-blindness and obstinacy are not traits that I see as
valuable in members of boards.
Further, I believe that there would surely be candidates with similar
people management credentials who don't have the dead weight. That
they may not have worked for Google, be male, or be in the Bay area
may be a problem, ... oh no ... maybe not!
Be pragmatic, it is clearly time for pragmatism. Please resign, as at
this time the hole has been dug by you and others has broken through
to the other side you have no base, there is no real return.
currently running at 263 no confidence votes, compared to 21. noting
that ref includes significant number of voices of clear reason and
office holders, senior and highly trusted volunteers within the WMF
movement who have a demonstrated history of intent, and integrity.