On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing,
but not exactly. I say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies
soliciting or expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably
approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By
"consulted", I would mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they
would be likely to agree to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant
application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant
application. In this case, we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case,
only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Anne, regarding:
>
> "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> sought is higher than that amount."
>
> I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems
a
bit like
micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
*advised
*of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
like
> > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
and
> > actively plannning for the day that
donations no longer support a
large
> > staff doing lots of things.
> >
> > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
> with
> > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
of
its
> leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
> >
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I
> would
> > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
the
>
request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
of any
donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
should
> be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
where the
dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or
even advance
notification,
> though.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
us
> >
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
be
a
> > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
were
> > not
> > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
> like
> > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool
and
> >
process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> official
> > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
the
> > design" and it is then pointed out
that it takes money to solve
this...
> > >
> > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
What
I
> do
> > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability
to
> stop
> > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine
for
> not
> > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and
Siko
and
> > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining
is
> > > > achieving exactly the
opposite of what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in
the
> sand
> > > and
> > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here --
oh
> > look!
> > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds"
I take
it
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for
you?
> > When
> > > > are
> > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move
us
> >
> forward.
> > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> achieve?
> > > >
> > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and
what
> > > have
> > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role,
she
was
> to
> > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may
not
> like
> > > it
> > > > and that is ok.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the
good
> > > > questions
> > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project,
why
is
it
> > not
> > > > > mentioned in
> > > > >
> > >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k
is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
> > > about
> > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
> > about
> > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore
the
> > > > question
> > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel
beyond
an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
> > > about
> > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > > direction,
> > > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about
WMF
> > > > > governance, planning,
and turnover. I am curious how you plan
to
> > > > address
> > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking
about
our
> > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
> > have
> > > > > those
> > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The
> > > > recent
> > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF
staff
> is
> > > > making
> > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more
> difficult
> > to
> > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost
control
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan
is.
> > > Personally,
> > > > I
> > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > > > > restoring
> > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > > > goodwill.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen.
I
am
> > > > > interested
> > > > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pine
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> > > darekj(a)alk.edu.pl
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"
<sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> > napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > T
> > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the
search engine
to
> > > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
a]
> > > system
> > > > > for
> > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on
the
> > > > Internet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be
all
> > > > > open/public
> > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and
still
> not
> > a
> > > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial
one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> >
searches
> > > > > > across projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was
not
on
> the
> > > > Board
> > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build
now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by
Wikipedia" budget
for
> > > > 2015–2016
> > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us
to
> > > which
> > > > > > board
> > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this
> > > question
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may
pick).
> > > > >
> > > > > Good night!
> > > > >
> > > > > Dj
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>