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
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
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
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
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…
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
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
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>