Wikimedia-l February 2017

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

139 participants
95 discussions

MediaWiki project
by OhNoitsJamie 1 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Hello, I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the issue is that I cannot maintain server infrastructure myself. Also, most of the MediaWiki hosting services listed do not meet my requirements. Therefore, I was wondering if the WMF would consider starting a new project that I could be founder of. I'm open to a variety of topics, please let me know what you would prefer. Thank you for your time, Jamie

3 3

Moderation duties
by Richard Ames 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

I've decided to relieve myself of the moderator job..... The current moderators are listed at the bottom of the listinfo page at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l Best wishes, Richard.

3 2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order
by Mike Godwin 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Yair Rand writes: > I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical > and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under > that section, the policy was yet again violated. I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence, but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action. I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you think this is so. My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that difficult to believe. Please assume good faith. Best, --Mike

5 4

"Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution
by MZMcBride 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

This is probably of interest to this list. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Delegation_of_policy-making_authority --- Delegation of policy-making authority This was approved on December 13, 2016 by the Board of Trustees. Whereas, the Board of Trustees has traditionally approved certain global Wikimedia Foundation policies (such as the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use) as requested during the July 4, 2004 Board meeting <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/July_4,_2004>; Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director has authority to conduct the affairs of the Wikimedia Foundation, which includes adopting and implementing policies; Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter, and revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate; Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for the Wikimedia Foundation upon request to the Executive Director or as required by law. Approve Christophe Henner (Chair), Maria Sefidari (Vice Chair), Dariusz Jemielniak, Kelly Battles, Guy Kawasaki, Jimmy Wales, Nataliia Tymkiv, and Alice Wiegand --- I wonder how much of this resolution is formalizing what was already happening and how much of this is moving the Wikimedia Foundation in a new direction. After a very tumultuous year at the Wikimedia Foundation, this is certainly a notable development. I also wonder in what ways this abrupt change will alter the relationship between the editing communities and the Board of Trustees. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees seems to be committing itself to downsizing its role and responsibilities. The concern is that a change like this will reduce accountability when policies are set, unset, and changed by someone overseeing a large staff that regularly comes in conflict with an even larger set of editing communities. The Executive Director, of course, is unelected and has been a central point of repeated controversies recently. It's been less than a year since the previous Executive Director resigned after being forced out by her staff. In the context of the recent history, this resolution is all the more puzzling. MZMcBride

12 22

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
by Bill Takatoshi 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <list-wikimedia(a)funcrunch.org> wrote: > > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and > all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is > and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged. More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past weeks: * make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no opposition, task created) * relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial) * assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or opposition yet) * correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues (seconded; unclear whether this is controversial) * turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions were asked but have yet been answered) * issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded, controversial, statement issued by ED) * call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial) * improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition yet) * require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of action (seconded, controversial) * create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are restricted (no second yet) * add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial) It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?) I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners. I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others. -Will

5 6

The Signpost – Volume 13, Issue 2 – 6 February 2017
by Wikipedia Signpost 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Arbitr… Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Specia… News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/News_a… In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/In_foc… WikiProject report: For the birds! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/WikiPr… Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Op-ed In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/In_the… Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Techno… Traffic report: Cool It Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Traffi… Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Featur… Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Forum Single-page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single https://facebook.com/wikisignpost https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Signpost team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost

1 0

Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order
by Michelle Paulson 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Dear All, Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v. Trump[2] currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and operations. We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging the order, as appropriate. We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on this important issue. >From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and communities. >From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across borders. We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to gatherings and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate and community governance and execute strategic oversight. As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia projects and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and the conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and travel restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings, conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension of restrictions to additional countries. It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read more about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5] Best, Michelle Paulson Interim General Counsel [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAmicus_curiae_brie… [2] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restr…

4 3

De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance
by Maor Malul 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Dear all, Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_… In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements. For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliate_der… Regards, M. -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Maor Malul Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve> Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il <http://wikimedia.org.il> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x

12 18

February 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#5)
by Katherine Maher 05 Feb '17

05 Feb '17

Hello everyone! The update the past two weeks were delayed while I joined members of our African community in Ghana for WikiIndaba 2017 and participated in organization-wide quarterly reviews. This is a long email. In summary, you will find information on: - The core movement strategy team - Team tracks being developed - The Community Process Steering Committee - Strategy discussions being planned for Wikimedia Conference 2017 - The results of preliminary discussions at - Wikimedia Foundation's All Hands gathering - Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland - The WikiIndaba conference 2017 First, a quick note from Ghana: congratulations to the WikiIndaba organizers for a high-energy, high-quality event. The program was engaging, highly relevant, and thought-provoking around the future of our movement in Africa. It was great to see people from across the continent, from Algeria to South Africa, Uganda to Nigeria. If you are reading this from anywhere else in the world, and haven’t had a chance to get to know our communities in Africa, you should check out these blog posts about the first Africa de-stubathon[1] and the third annual Wiki Loves Africa - and mark your calendars for Wikimania Cape Town 2018! Over the past couple weeks, the core strategy team discussed the distribution of these updates, and the likelihood that we’re not reaching enough people in the community with these notifications. We want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate in conversations and discussions. As such, the Foundation’s Community Engagement and Communications departments are working on plans to increase the distribution of our updates to different places and on different channels beyond Wikimedia-l (such as other mailing lists, social media groups, and more). *We need your help to get the word out so as many communities as possible can make their voices heard. *Where do your communities gather? *We welcome your suggestions on where we should share these and other updates.* *Core movement strategy team* As I shared in my last update, the core team who will help facilitate the movement strategy process is coming together. They have the experience to do the work we need to do—from deep strategic consideration to long-time knowledge of Wikimedia. The core team[2] is composed of individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation and williamsworks:[3] - Whitney Williams, williamsworks - Ed Bland, williamsworks - Shannon Keith, williamsworks - Guillaume Paumier, Senior Analyst, Wikimedia Foundation - Suzie Nussel, organizational strategy consultant, Wikimedia Foundation *To be clear - this team will not be determining the strategic direction. The Wikimedia movement will, together. *Instead, the core team’s responsibility is to shepherd the overall process and keep everyone involved and engaged. The architects (Whitney, Ed, Guillaume) will co-design the conversations within our communities and beyond, and help transform these conversations into meaningful, informed summaries and proposed direction. They will work in close collaboration with, and seek counsel from, track leads, working groups, and volunteer advisors. The project/stakeholder managers (Suzie and Shannon) will work with track leads to drive engagement, coordinate the tracks and support them as needed, as well as manage tasks, deadlines, and budgets for the overall process. We had an opportunity to introduce the core team at the January metrics meeting, and you can find that here.[4] *Team tracks (A-D)* Our proposal is to identify different audiences within our Wikimedia communities and organize "tracks" of information sharing and dialogue that meet the unique needs of those different audience. Each track would have a working group who would advise the core team on the best way to engage that track’s respective communities. While these are still evolving, the four tracks we are currently considering are: - *Track A - Organized groups* - Would coordinate efforts related to Wikimedia organized groups, which include the Wikimedia movement affiliates,[5] Funds Dissemination Committee, Affiliations Committee, the WMF Board, Foundation and affiliate staffs, and other organized or semi-organized groups that help support the movement, such as GLAM-wiki. - *Track B - Individual contributors* - Would coordinate efforts related to engaging individual contributors, such as editors, curators, and volunteer developers, across different languages and Wikimedia projects. - *Track C - High reach markets* - Would coordinate efforts related to existing and new readers of our projects, and potential and new partners, in countries or languages (markets) where we are well-known. Outreach to readers or prospective readers will focus on those markets where we have high reach in terms of awareness and usage. We will also talk with like-minded organizations and experts in knowledge, communities, and technology associated with the movement now, and those outside the movement. - *Track D - Low reach markets* - Would coordinate efforts related to existing and new readers of our projects, and potential and new partners, in countries or languages (markets) where we are not well-known. Outreach to readers or prospective readers will focus on those markets where we have limited reach in terms of awareness and usage. We will also talk with like-minded organizations and experts knowledge, communities, and technology associated with the movement now, and those outside the movement. We welcome your thoughts on these proposed tracks. Are there stakeholders we are missing? Do they make rough sense? Please share your thoughts on the talk page for this update.[6] *Process design for community audience tracks (A and B)* The Foundation's Community Engagement department has invited people from across the movement to convene a Community Process Steering Committee. This Committee has been having discussions with the core movement strategy team on how we might best engage individual contributors (Track B) and organized movement groups (Track A) in the strategy process. They will continue meeting on Fridays in the coming weeks to propose and collect input for a participatory and open movement process. In their first meetings, the group has discussed how to engage more "quiet" members of our community, and ways to utilize channels and platforms to encourage participation beyond Meta wiki and mailing lists. In addition to using a diverse number of communications channels - both on and off wiki - they also proposed engaging ambassadors (highly engaged community members) and hiring additional community liaisons to provide support for our many different languages.[7] These roles are now posted and accepting applicants.[8] The group has also been discussing how to build a facilitator toolkit to help ensure strong and effective discussion in local communities and projects and have a good template for reporting back to/from English. Additionally, a goal is for this toolkit to be able to help engage both long-time contributors and newer contributors. On a weekly basis, the Core Team will be sharing iterative prototypes of the first 2 suggested processes, based on input and feedback from this Steering Committee. The prototypes will be posted weekly on Meta for everyone to share their thoughts and feedback.[9] *Process design for experts and readers audience tracks (C and D)* The Core Team has been brainstorming some ideas for how to best convene or consult with global experts. The Foundation’s Global Reach team, led by Adele Vrana, is working to identify markets where outreach will have the most impact, and areas where outreach will require special consideration. We are currently considering leaders, both inside and outside the Wikimedia movement, to help develop and lead efforts around these two tracks. *Wikimedia Conference in Berlin (late March)* The Wikimedia Conference in Berlin is coming up in late March/early April. Given that it is one of our major annual community convenings, we have been asking ourselves how we can take advantage of having so many people from so many backgrounds together, in the same place, to talk about the future of our movement. Working with Wikimedia Deutschland, we have expanded the list of attendees for the conference, and are in the process of developing a dedicated “strategy track” for discussions. We have invited and confirmed arrangements for an additional 145 people, including our stewards, individual contributors, representatives of other movement organizations or groups (such as GLAM-wiki), and additional participants from smaller and newer affiliates. We will use Berlin as an opportunity to have an open conversation on the thematic direction of the overall movement. We will document these conversations in detail, to make sure they are open, transparent, and inform our broader community conversation. *Wikimedia Foundation's All Hands gathering* Whitney, Ed, and Shannon from Williamsworks attended the Wikimedia Foundation's All Hands staff meeting in January and have posted a report on Meta-Wiki with their initial findings.[10] Some of the themes emerging are: sharing knowledge (contributing, not just consuming/distributing), education (pathways to learning, curiosity), access to knowledge (next versus last billion on the internet, or other spaces for knowledge), greater kindness, advocacy (standing up and fighting for free knowledge in the world), and partnerships (the bigger "we"). *Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland* Suzie, Ed, and Anna Stillwell joined 12 executive directors of Wikimedia movement affiliates for a discussion in Switzerland on the movement strategy process. The meeting helped our core team gain insights on challenges and opportunities of the represented affiliates, as well as initial ideas around strategic direction themes and process recommendations for effective community conversations. Key themes identified include Education (focus on media literacy and leveraging projects for education), Go Global (everyone has the same access to knowledge), Inclusion (sum of all knowledge, coming from diverse sources and new formats), and Facts Matter (reliable and true knowledge in a "post facts" political climate in the US and Western Europe). *WikiIndaba conference 2017* I had an opportunity to have a number of wonderful conversations with members of our African community who attended this year's WikiIndaba conference 2017 in Ghana.[11] Instead of a feedback sessions, we agreed that the Indaba community would send me a message with their hopes, dreams, and what they would like Wikimedia to focus on over the next 15 years. I’m looking forward to receiving this, and sharing those themes on the Meta-Wiki strategy portal. One thing my trip to Ghana allowed me to reflect on is that even with how far this process has come in a short time, we have much farther still to go before we are fully able to engage a movement of our size in a truly meaningful way - or for every corner of our movement to even know this work is happening! I welcome your thoughts on this, and look forward to being able to share more in the coming weeks on how we efforts will help us meet this goal. *Next Steps* - Collecting community-wide feedback on proposed processes (organized groups and individual contributors) - Confirm track teams, roles, and responsibilities - Build facilitator toolkit, including: - Premises for the discussion - Framing context (research brief) for the discussion on movement strategy and questions/prompts to inspire conversation - Tools and ideas for engaging communities (e.g., in-person facilitation approaches, best practices on community outreach on wiki) - Template and instructions for written summary on discussion. - Build out documentation on Meta-Wiki 2017 Movement Strategy Portal to support engagement and transparency Beginning this month, we will be sharing a monthly summary of these emails via the strategy updates MassMessage list people have been signing up for. :) If you would like to add your user page or group's talk page to this update list, you are invited to sign up.[12] Thank you for reading so far! I really appreciate your continued interest in and patience with this process as it develops. I appreciate the feedback people have provided and, like many of you, am eager to begin a movement-wide discussion. Katherine PS. A version of this message will be available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[13] [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/11/22/digest-africa/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Team [3] http://williamsworks.com/ [4] https://youtu.be/6fF4xLHkZe4?t=31m45s [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Updates/27_January_2017_-_Update_5_on_ Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Team#Strategy_Coordinators [8] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Process/Design [10] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Research_and_notes/All-Hands_Summary_Report [11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/12/digest-wiki-loves-africa-begins/ [12] https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10153505 [13] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Updates/27_January_2017_-_Update_5_on_ Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process -- Katherine Maher Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885> +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873> kmaher(a)wikimedia.org

3 2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance
by Maor Malul 05 Feb '17

05 Feb '17

Hi Nathan, I would say the reasons can change, but one of the most important are being inactive for a very long period of time, and repeated failure to provide a response and a plan to restart activities, despite offering advise and assistance. Another could be a serious violation of the chapters agreement, after repeated requests to normalize the situation. I do not want to mention a specific example for privacy reasons, but you can't expect to keep the recognition forever if your group doesn't organize any activities, and when inquired about the lack of these, fail to provide a response or accept help to restart the group. And again, the process is not automatic, the WMF has been monitoring the different affiliates constantly, and we assist in reaching out to them whenever there is no response. You may find a perhaps similar approach in the eligibility criteria for attending the WMCON. M. Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2017 1:33 PM On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > I fail to see who you are targeting and on what basis. My impression is > that it only has to do with money.. I understand this. For other parts like > the language committee there are no reports except for the activity on its > mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not the > task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the > Wikimedia board. > Thanks, > GerardM You misread - evidently both the original message and my reply. I answer your question in my prior post, and hopefully subsequent posts by others have cleared up any other confusion. Maor - thank you for your explanation. Would it be fair to say that the criteria for considering denying renewal are informal, and that some factors (including communication with AffCom) may not be publicly available for review? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l February 2017