2009/8/25 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>om>: The cash is obviously useful, and I think this kind of arrangement is fairly common in the charity world, but it will inevitably cause drama in the community. I don't recall an intention to sell seats on the board being mentioned in any of their candidate statements... That bit I have to agree with you on, I was very curious about it. It seems the press release was issued, Greg found it and realised it hadn't been posted here so did so. Why it wasn't announced here at the same time the press release was sent out, I don't know...

2009/8/25 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: When did Jimmy say that? I rather suspect you are taking something he said out of context... We may yet find out. Minutes of board meetings are being published again (after a period of secrecy).

2009/8/25 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: I've heard that you frequently post claims that you fail to back up, but my source is confidential. Please. Oh, and someone told me to do this, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to say who instructed me so to do. James. -- James D. Forrester jdforrester(a)wikimedia.org | jdforrester(a)gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: It reminds me of this article I read in the NYT yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/health/policy/25zeke.html Dr. Emanuel has written over a million words on health care and somewhere, in one of his papers, its possible to twist his words into making him sound like he's saying something that he doesn't actually believe. Except in your case you don't even have actual source material to twist about so its much, much worse.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:18 PM, James Forrester <james(a)jdforrester.org>wrote;wrote: Can you prove that I asked you about this off-list? I'm not going to pretend that something isn't true just because I can't prove it to you. Many people on this list know that I am not making this up. My comment was directed at them, not at you. If you want to put your head in the sand, that is your right. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sarcasm generally has a valid point, or else it'd be called nonsense.

2009/8/25 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com>om>: Not the advisory board, the real one.

2009/8/25 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: I'm pretty sure that last paragraph was sarcasm.

...still, I have to acknowledge that money is the root of Evil, and it's getting harder and harder as these dollar bills start to pile up where do they go and why... ...the reports get more and more vague, the report items get more and more broad, and at the end we start to see hundreds of those bills go out for "consultancy", "administration" and "travel expenses" titled items... But I don't necessarily talk about ourselves but successful NGOs in general. Pitiable world we live in. grin

2009/8/26 Peter Gervai <grinapo(a)gmail.com>om>: Sure, if world peace is evil. By the way, you might want to read up on Wikipedia on that phrase, where it will undoubtedly tell you that it is "the *lust* for money that is the root of all evil". Not money itself. It's like democracy. Democracy is an empty shell you put political ideas into. Similar with money; they have no spirit or faith in themselves, it is what we make of them; if it is evil, then so be it, if it is good, well, we can do that too. Unless - of course - you really do think that money is evil, then I will acknowledge Anthony's comment, and send the remainder my way.

Hoi, hear hear !! Thanks, Gerard 2009/8/26 Christophe Henner <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Nathan<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: I simply saw it on PRNewswire and figured folks here would appreciate seeing it. I have no clue why it wasn't already posted here but the coordination of press-releases can be a tricky thing especially when most of the staff and the board is in Buenos Aires. Do they do siesta in Argentina? :)

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: I notice it doesn't address the matter that they have stopped beating their wives, either.

2009/8/25 Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>om>: It is not unusual for many charities. It is unusual for a community driven charity like the WMF.

Gregory Maxwell wrote: As Gregory points out, it's fairly unusual for foundations to make grants of unrestricted money, and we've been quite fortunate to have those as we develop our capacity to carry out the sorts of projects that they will provide restricted grants for (like the usability initiative). The Omidyar Network, in addition to making grants, likes to make itself available as a resource for grantees, rather than simply handing out money and then disappearing. For one example, their human resources executive, also someone with experience as an eBay executive in that area, could be a big help for us as we tackle hiring key positions such as a CTO. And in a similar fashion we feel that Matt can be a resource for us as a board member. He has extensive experience in strategic planning processes, at eBay and previously in his consulting work, and also has important nonprofit experience, serving on the boards of organizations like DonorsChoose.org and the Sunlight Foundation. As I mentioned earlier, Jay was going to publish the press releases and Q&A, but as Erik explained we had some internet problems, so that's why some of this was passed through via the external version of the press release. I had also intended to write an additional note to the list about the grant, but lost my internet connection immediately after I sent the first one. The information is all posted on the foundation website now that we have connectivity again: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_Au… http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_Au… http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Board_Announcements_Augu… --Michael Snow

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Joshua Gay <joshuagay(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's quite an accusation. WMF board members aren't supposed to be paid. If they're paid by a third party, is that okay? Even that is problematic, though more from the point of view of the ON and not the WMF. If the ON, through its 501(c)(3), bought a seat for $2 million and gave it to Matt Halprin, who is free to act in his individual capacity, isn't the 501(c)(3) in essence giving Halprin $2 million? These are interesting questions, but ultimately, not our problem. The WMF and the ON are not community-run foundations. We have no legal right to demand answers.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: No, what I mean is they aren't supposed to be paid *for being board members*. At least that is my understanding of the intent of the WMF bylaws. I don't necessarily agree with it, but thems the rules, it seems.

2009/8/27 Joshua Gay <joshuagay(a)gmail.com>om>: I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be illegal. A trustee has a legal obligation to do what they think is best for the charity, not anyone else. I would be surprised if that wasn't the case in the UK.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: I'm not 100% sure about the law in the US, but under the WMF bylaws: "The Board and its Trustees are understood to act as fiduciaries with regard to the Foundation, and their duties include, but are not limited to, the fiduciary duty of care and the fiduciary duty of loyalty." I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network. According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: You're probably not an accountant who has kept the books of partnerships, then (at least not in the US). By law, partners are not employees. Payments received by partners for services rendered are "guaranteed payments", not "wages".

2009/8/27 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: "Partner" has different meanings. A partner in a partnership is as you describe. A partner is a large (often public) company like a bank is just a title for a high ranking employee. I think we are talking at cross purposes. If Matt is a partner in the context of a partnership, then you are correct, although I don't think the exact nature of his legal relationship with Omidyar is relevant.

2009/8/27 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Big banks often do it. I remember reading a news article about Goldman Sachs announcing its new batch of partners. They were all high ranking employees and, as far as know, remained so, just with a new title. That certainly sounds plausible. He isn't sitting on the WMF board on behalf of Omidyar either way, so what different does it make?

2009/8/25 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Someone gives $2m to the WMF and gets a seat on the board on the same day. I think I can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that those are not unrelated events.

2009/8/25 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: As I've already said, whether or not it was sold is irrelevant, it *looks* like it was sold, and that is a big problem.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Nevermind: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS157391+18-Mar-2009+PRN20090… I'm tempted to continue my "prostitution" analogy, but I won't.

Sorry to top-post (Blackberry). Yes, the progress towards the goals will be published to the community. Omidyar wants to support us in doing our work, so we worked together to define what success will look like (as per the Q and A). Those were very good conversations, in which they essentially agreed with us on what's important -- overall global reach, overall global participation, the importance of a broad base of donors supporting our work, and the successful completion of the strategy project. That is all good: it's stuff we care about, and would track and report on anyway. It's a completely unrestricted grant, supporting our own goals and priorities. My apologies for the way this information reached you all. (I'm not criticizing Greg: forwarding the press release was the obvious and right thing for him to do.) I'm just sorry that the detailed information didn't reach foundation-l from the Wikimedia Foundation itself, first. Suffice to say that connectivity at both the venue and hotel has been super-patchy today, and was unexpectedly down all afternoon :-( Thanks, Sue On 25/08/2009, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2009/8/26 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: Those answers don't address the fact that you've just given a seat on the board to someone that has just given you a big pile of cash. I am open to being convinced that this is a good thing, but you haven't even tried to convince me. I am not arguing that Matt isn't a good choice for the board, I am arguing that the circumstances of his appointment are inappropriate. Had you discussed the general principle of selling board seats with the community you might have got a positive response, but you didn't ask.

This question is equivalent to the question: How does any appointment to the board have any impact on the activities within the projects? isn't it? ... or even How does the board have any impact on the activities within the projects? right? So what is/was the reason to 'elect' community representatives to the board? On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Sebastian Moleski<sebmol(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Those answers don't address the fact that you've just given a seat on >> the board to someone that has just given you a big pile of cash. I am >> open to being convinced that this is a good thing, but you haven't >> even tried to convince me. I am not arguing that Matt isn't a good >> choice for the board, I am arguing that the circumstances of his >> appointment are inappropriate. Had you discussed the general principle >> of selling board seats with the community you might have got a >> positive response, but you didn't ask. >> > This may be a heretic question but I'd like to pose it anyway: why > should it be necessary or appropriate for the Foundation to discuss > > Best regards, > > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

Hi Thomas, On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Those are undoubtedly interesting assertions. Assuming the second one is the case (big decisions should be made by the community), it raises even more the question of why it is necessary or appropiate for the selection of Foundation board seats to be discussed with the project communities, doesn't it? That would really only make sense if you expect the Foundation to make decisions that significantly impact activities within the projects, something you just ruled out. So why? Best regards, Sebastian

Sebastian Moleski hett schreven: The foundation is nothing. The foundation has no meaning by itself. It's just a real-world manifestation of the spirit that is our community. This manifestation is necessary, cause the community as a diffuse object cannot do things like buying servers, signing treaties etc. The foundation is an avatar. This is the sole reason why a foundation exists. To enable the community to act outside cyperspace. Therefore ideally there should be no decision without knowledge and acceptance of the community. Marcus Buck User:Slomox

2009/8/26 Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com>om>: I agree, but the WMF isn't like other non-profit organisations. It is far more community driven. The community is worth far more than a few million dollars.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Guillaume Paumier<guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] It was my understanding that the appointment was of Matt Halprin, not the Omidyar Network. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert Rohde<rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm not sure why people are behaving as though there is any ambiguity on this point. The Omidyar Network agreed to make a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation with the understood condition that their representative would receive a seat on the board. There is no need for speculation, it is what it is, like it or dislike it.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Robert Rohde<rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thats quite fair, however: Should we not refer to elected candidates as elected when exactly the same provision applies? [snip] There is absolutely no reason to doubt that. None at all. It happens every single day that the Wikimedia sites do not run advertising.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Is it unimportant? We're discussing how this action is perceived as having bought a seat, so I'd say that that semantics and interpretations definitely are important here. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023

My two cents - The Board telegraphed this ahead of time, not the particulars (who/when) but the generalities. The process is not unusual for other charitable organizations. There are more community members (active or ex) on the Board than any other category. There still will be even if all the potential / authorized expert slots are filled. While there is always a theoretical potential for some sort of un-core-principles like covert coup from within, there is whether one invites external board members in or not and whether or not we accept money from people with strings. I see no sign that any of the staff or board are interested in any such thing. They seem to be doing a lot of "Make the charity a serious, self-sustaining organization", in addition to just keeping the lights on for the servers. But that's the purpose of the Foundation. A pure volunteer pure individual donations organization can't accomplish the stability and help expand open access to information in the way we all would like to see. We (the community) wanted this growth and maturity. We hired people who can do this growth and mature the organization, and are moving down the track in the direction we asked them to go. The strings here are probably to our advantage - more competent people with wider experience and sharing our core values on the Board is a good thing, not a bad one. Bravo to the Board and Staff for this. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 21:26, Gregory Maxwell<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: If you're going to be consistent with your first comment (above: appointment is of Matt Halprin, not ON), then the word "representative" is probably not the right one. (not denying any connection or anything, just pointing out semantics) Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Kropotkine_113 <Kropotkine113(a)free.fr>wrote;wrote: You're misunderstanding the role of the nominating committee and the selection criteria page. The criteria page, as it notes, is for brainstorming the type of candidate characteristics the Board needs. The nominating committee is a group of folks whose role is to help the board locate promising candidates. Authority to appoint Board members (elected or otherwise) rests with the Board. The agita over Halprin's appointment is a little overwrought. Allusions to community upset or hints at conflicts of interest won't be taken seriously unless some evidence of an actual problem can be presented. In what situations precisely will a conflict of interest occur? What evidence is there that the wider community has any problem with this at all, or is likely to, aside from a few high-volume Foundation-l posters? I'm amazed that it hasn't ever hit some people that a confrontational and self-righteous approach is quite rarely effective at getting results when your voice is your only power. Nathan

Hello Kropotkine_113, since I am on the NomCom I will answer your questions. Kropotkine_113 wrote: This is not correct. Essentially the NomCom should nominate the board members, and should do this at the end of last year. But it didn't worked out. There are multiple reasons for that. Basically that was the first time that we worked how it can work and how not. We are simply lack of experience. So, it didn't work out last winter. We should have four nominated candidates appointed to the board by the begin of 2009 but we had only two by that time. According to the bylaw of the Foundation IV 6 the board can appoint trustees because of vacancy, this is the case. So Matt was not on the NomCom list. But we had informed the NomCom though about this process. After Wikimania the NomCom would resume its work and make suggestions for next year. So Matt would be included by NomCom in its list that it would suggest to the board by December or would drop out. The list of NomCom is not published because of privacy. It is a very simple thing. If someone is suggested on the list and he is not selected or he declined, in either cases can it can both be embarassing for the person as well as for the Foundation. So the NomCom had decided on its first meeting that the list would not be published and should be kept confidential. This would also be the case for the coming years. Because of the nature of the confidenciality of the NomCom the discussion are kept internal. But there are meeting minutes and the mailing list is archived. The NomCom published a status report which is published here: [1] The discussion about this assignment and the voting about it would be published as one of the topics of the August board meeting. I want to respect the secratory offices role here and don't make any announcements prior of Kat's publication of the minutes. What I can say at this point is that I voted for Matt for the following reasons: First of all Jimmy and Michael interviewed and talked with Matt. Both of them had recommended him as a valuable plus for the board. The board had interviewed Matt in Buenos Aires, had discussed all the problems that may be raised or values that may be added. According of all these evaluations I feel no problem as voting for him. We worked with Matt in Buenos Aires during our strategic planning session and I feel that our positive evaluation was confirmed as Matt had inputted a lot of insights out of his experiences about procedures and measurements of success. Ting [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nominating_committee

Kropotkine_113 wrote: I agree, we will improve that. This by no mean a waste of time. It is my duty to answer your questions. -- Ting Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/

Kropotkine_113 wrote: Ting already answered the rest of these questions, but I will elaborate on this one. The page is perhaps not completely clear, but the Nominating Committee used it as a workspace to brainstorm and prioritize possible criteria. Thus, it was not decided that we should make membership in the Wikimedia community a criterion for the appointed seats, as most of us did not think this was a priority. I think this is quite understandable, since these seats are designed to allow us to find outside expertise for areas not already covered by the board members selected by the community. Neither Matt nor anyone else pretends that he was a member of the Wikimedia community before he was appointed to the board. I know that he was looking forward to getting to know people from the community at Wikimania, though. --Michael Snow

Thank you very much all of you (Brigitte SB, Ting Chen, Mickael Snow and others). To close my participation in this thread I just add three points : - My question about the wikimedia membership criterion wasn't very important, but just-to-know ; thanks for your explanations. - The communication process on this whole story has been disastrous ; this, added to the fact that Wikis, Q&A and help pages are not up-to-date or are confused, tranforms a maybe-good-decision (I have my own opinion on this point ;)) in a too-weird-to-be-good-decision ; the "NOMCOM disapearance in vacuum" is a good example. It doesn't worth 10Mo discussion threads, I think you are aware of this. - Even more important point is the cultural gap between Foundation's intentions and communication, which are very "north-american slanted" (I don't know how to say that), and its perception by a very multicultural community. The gap is particularly large concerning financial/executive power relations. You have to be very careful about this and to be very pedagogic when you report such decisions, because when the story will appear in french village pump (for example) it will be hard tuff for chapter's members to explain it correctly (if possible). The answer often used is : "It's not evil, it's just the way american people deal with it every day". Just let me tell you that's not a sufficient answer for many people (like me ;)). I think that a non-used but very efficient solution would be to share informations before the official report and to work closely with local chapters ; but this is a more wide problem and slightly out-of-the-scope of this thread. Kropotkine_113 Le mercredi 26 août 2009 à 19:46 -0700, Michael Snow a écrit :

--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Kropotkine_113 <Kropotkine113(a)free.fr> wrote: I agree. Inward facing communication has long been a problem for WMF. At times there have been board members that took more leadership in this area regarding various issues, but I can't remember a time when this hasn't been an issue. I think it is mostly a problem of WMF not setting up the expectations accurately. In my personal opinion when communicating with the community; surprises are bad. Even good surprises are bad. Fulfilling expectations on the other hand is good. It seems to be better received by the community when WMF fulfills a modest expectation than when it reveals a wonderful surprise. I don't completely understand what you are talking about here. What is the "american way" ? And what do you mean by "pedagogic"? Birgitte SB

In the interest of creating *informed* discussion, please note the publication of Episode 82 of Wikipedia Weekly - an interview with Matt Halprin. In this, at timecode 9:15 he is specifically asked about the issue of the donation+board membership. http://wikipediaweekly.org/2009/08/28/episode-82-matt-halprin-interview/ Best, -Liam [[witty lama]] On 8/28/09, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata

here is the transcript of the question and answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Wikimania_2009/Halpr… Thanks to Sage Ross for doing this. -Liam [[witty lama]] On 8/28/09, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata

2009/8/28 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Who made the offer and who the acceptance isn't very important. It is a legal technicality, but all that really matters is that both exist.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: By the way, in the future, the board should avoid these kinds of accusations by clearly separating the two transactions. If possible, the board members shouldn't even know about the $2 million until after it has voted. If not, the $2 million should be announced publicly before the board votes. I suppose there could still be secret contracts or at least verbal agreements involved, but they'd probably leak out and be announced by Kelly Martin or someone.

2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten(a)bonetmail.com>om>: We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Huib!<abigor(a)forgotten-beauty.com> wrote: I'm going to second Huib on this one. Thomas and Anthony certainly are active posters, but they haven't done anything out of line that requires moderation. Depending on the thread, you can easily see other people seem to dominate. This is natural as some things are more interesting than others. There's times when I am one of the active posters; just not recently :) This list has really high traffic (depending on season, it fluctuates a bit) and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Moderation isn't the answer though. The signal to noise ratio here remains fairly decent, so we wouldn't really gain anything through moderation (except some very tired mods!) -Chad

Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother the others. But, if that does not help, more measurements should be considered. To begin with, we should be more disciplined in order not to feed the trolls. Ziko 2009/8/28 Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>om>: -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde

2009/8/28 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Personally, I use an email filter called "my brain". I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success.

2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>om>: You may want to go through the threads for the last month, say, and see what proportion of them I have contributed to. I have never actually counted, but I suspect it is a minority.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: I'm absolutely sure mine is a minority. There are a lot of important things going on right now. That's why Thomas and I have been so talkative lately.

A quick correction (at the risk of adding to my post count for this month (-;) I have not posted to this list every month since September 2004, I was including posts at Wikipedia-l. However, I think that's pretty reasonable considering that list is largely dormant and Foundation-l has widened in scope to absorb it. skype: node.ue On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mark Williamson<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote: Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.) Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

One idea could be to introduce a rule that each user should limit his/her entries to maximum one/day and thread I am sure this would lead to better quality, without stopping valuable input, and make the list much more comprehensive and useful. (With this rule last days 80 entires would probalbly been limited to something like 20) foundation-l is a resource that could be made to be of much use and importance if just the chattiness was limited Anders Mark Williamson skrev:

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Anders Wennersten < anders.wennersten(a)bonetmail.com&gt; wrote: I really don't understand what use you're trying to get out of this mailing list. You say "On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject." Maybe what you want is a wiki, and not an unmoderated mailing list? Could you give an example of an unmoderated mailing list which has successfully imposed a rule such as the one you suggest? I don't think it's going to succeed in providing the usefulness you desire, and I'm sure it's going to destroy the usefulness that Thomas, myself, and many others on this list do desire. If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in addition to the regular foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's considerably inappropriate for you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us have been enjoying for years and in one month decide you want to alter it to suit your tastes.

--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Brianna Laugher &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I am only still subscribed because I blacklist several people who I find excessive (although not Anthony). But I don't think moderation as answer here. Who would dare to take on the chore of moderator and what will be the result. Look at what happened the last time someone was moderated; we had how many messages full of smears about the moderation itself? I don't know exactly the number because I quickly adjusted my blacklist to the poster's new email address. I wonder if no one responds to Thomas Dalton for a month how much he will continue to post. I understand why people want moderation, but I don't think it is practical. However, filters solve a majority of the problem. The biggest help would be people resisting the urge to reply when someone is obviously looking for a debate for debate's sake. Birgitte SB

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: You wouldn't be if that was actually what happened. It isn't. Nitpicking, snide remarks and attempts to score cheap points != good faith attempts to refine ideas. It doesn't help that you and Thomas are impenetrable to criticism - you don't even acknowledge the possibility that some people might have a valid point when they criticize the volume and style of your posts. You dismiss them with "Well, get a better e-mail client or just go away."

Hoi, When you are not here to convince but only their to talk, it is not reasonable to abuse this mailing list where people want to inform, convince, reach consensus. The generation of noise that you apparently consider ok for this list wastes a lot of time. With so many words you say that your contributions are not necessarily meant to have an effect, as a consequence I would prefer it when you limit your activity to things where you personally are willing to make a difference. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/29 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;

2009/8/30 Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: If the problem can be solved either by someone changing their email client or by someone else not sending the emails they would like to send, I think the former is the better solution. I don't see a problem with you skipping over emails. My emails are generally replies to previous emails, if you have found that a given exchange has lost interest for you you should stop reading it. If you weren't interested in one email you aren't likely to be interested in a reply to that email. I try to always give useful quotes of the emails I'm replying to, so you should be able to quickly find those emails of mine that are about something you find interesting and ignore the rest.

Anthony skrev: Just for the record as I will not pursue this issue any more. I have used e-mails daily since 1984 (actually then introducing the first mailsystem into a major Swedish company). I have been active in many hundreds maillists, and have no problem handing a flow of mails. I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and find that almost the same topics are up with very much the same people and arguments, but where on internal a complicated issue can take 20-30 mails whereafter often some type a consensus is reached , I find on foundation-l some 200-300 mail in the same subject with no firm conclusion. After following the list for six weeks I have come to the conclusion the inefficiency of this list is because it is too chatty, and that an improvement could easily be done by just abiding to the common-sense rule I have experienced on other list where there are many subscriber - limit the number of entries per user and day - it enables more people to participate and make it easier to follow a discussion. Anders (last entry on this subject)

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l?

2009/8/30 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: I'm not on internal-l, but it seems unlikely. If there has been any canvassing (and I see no evidence of it) I expect it would be done in private. internal-l doesn't tend to concern itself with little old us, from what I know of it.

Some people like to enumerate all the points, that other people might take to be assumable/implied/given. This might be disparagingly labeled as "an amazing capacity for stating the blindingly obvious". It is a common symptom of various types of "youth". I find the contributions of the two participants being discussed, plus Geoffrey, to be generally unhelpful in gaining a deeper understanding of any issue. Partially because they say nothing new, partially because they treat the discussion more like IRC/IM than email, partially for the other reasons already mentioned by others. I'm going to take this opportunity to attempt to setup the username filtering/blacklisting that many people have suggested, to see if that drastically improves the signal/noise ratio. I'd also be interested in how Birgitte's suggestion would work out, if adopted by everyone here: "I wonder if no one responds to [...] for a month how much he will continue to post." Quiddity On 8/30/09, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote:

In general, though, I think if we all put you on our personal block lists, I think that would probably reduce the amount you posted. I don't like that as an option though because like I said before, you do contribute good ideas to this list. Mark skype: node.ue On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Anthony&lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote:

If you're going to tell us what we "need" to do, may we tell you what you need to do as well? I have a few ideas. Mark On 8/31/09, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: -- skype: node.ue

I've been telling you what I would like you to do. That's quite different. On 8/31/09, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: -- skype: node.ue

Yes, I delete pages of messages every day, and some of the posters to Wikipedia lists are among them. They are just not worth the time it takes to open them. They are just never part of the solution. Fred

Kropotkine_113 wrote: ... Using the chapters as intermediaries between the Wikimedia Foundation and the communities is actually a solution that has been used in the past. It certainly feature a certain efficiency (proximity with the community and common language). However, I am not convinced it is a good idea to go this way. First because it requires the chapter to actually agree to a certain degree with the action of the Wikimedia Foundation. Which requires internal discussion within the chapter, information of all board members, agreement over the action, and planification over the communication need. In itself, that's quite an achievement. Even if there is no clear agreement, it seems very odd that, say, the chapter would somehow give arguments to justify and explain something done by WMF to editors, whilst it does not support this action. In case the WMF does something that the community does not like, there is little reason for the heat and light to fall on the shoulders of another organization. That's WMF responsibility to assume their decisions, to inform stakeholders of their decisions, and hopefully to offer channels for stakeholders to give their feedback. I am not convinced it is within the role of chapters to be the intermediaries. And doing it regularly would possibly mislead WMF to get further apports from contributors. Ant

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: I keep reading such statements and I'm having to admit: I have more and more problems following your logic. Let's take this apart: "I would prefer it if the WMF didn't do things the chapters don't agree with." Each chapters as well as the Wikimedia Foundation are distinct organizations, each with their own stakeholders to server and interests to protect. While the general goal and mission of these organizations are the same, there are also differences that need to be accounted for. This diversity is a good thing, in fact, because it prevents a sort of thinking that the best solution to any significant problem is the one everyone can agree with. That doesn't mean that there should be no conversations between individual organizations. But it does mean that each organization, in the end, makes its own decision on how to best fulfill its mission. "If the chapters make their decisions based on community opinion (I think all chapters have elected boards, so presumably they will)" This statement presupposes that an elected chapter board is equivalent to it representing community opinion. It also presupposes that there's such a thing as "community opinion". The first part doesn't carry really if one considers that chapter boards tend to be elected by the chapter's members. Now, the sets "chapter members" and "community" may be overlapping but they're not identical. In fact, if "community" means those contributing to Wikimedia projects, there may well be a significant number of chapter members who are not part of the community. There's thus no good reason assuming or expecting that a chapter's board "represents" community opinion. But even if all chapter members were also members of the community, it would still be very shortsighted to expect a chapter's board to base its decision solely on community opinion (whatever that would be). A chapter's board has a fiduciary duty to that chapter. The community certainly is one of the chapter's stakeholders, it's not the only one though. Aside from the community, there are other stakeholders to consider and it may very well be that a chapter has to make decisions for which widespread community support may not exist. It might be that your "based on" already accounts for this sort of differentiation; it's not clear to me that it does though. "then the WMF should make its decisions based on chapter opinion." The same arguments above for chapters can be applied here too. The job of the Foundation's board is to act in the best interest of the Foundation. Now, paying attention to the wishes and expecations of the community can reasonably be expected to often be part of that. I would not support the notion, however, that it's always the case. When I re-read your statement and prior ones, there appears to me some sort of "unity theory" that (1) there's a discernabe "community opinion" and (2) chapters and foundation should follow whatever that "community opinion" is. It feels like a sort of majoritan dictatorship where change becomes dependent on (1) broad support for that change and (2) coming through the community. The corollary appears to be that, if one cannot convince the community of a necessary change, you're out of luck. It just doesn't seem to leave much room to diversity in approach or pluralism in activities but rather cement much of the reluctance to reform/conservatism already manifest on some of the Wikimedia projects. Please, do correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words. I would, in fact, be very glad if I am misinterpreting because this sort of vision would not be something I want to have a part in. Best regards, Sebastian

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: That's unfortunate. I was hoping for more. I will also correct one slight mistake in what you say - the The fact that two orrganization share goals does not mean that their interests align completely. Not all of the goals of the foundation are goals of a chapter and vice versa. And even when they are the same, they may go about them in different ways. There are, for example, hundreds of organizations worldwide trying to save the environment, promote world peace, eradicate poverty, spread education, etc. Overlapping goals, overlapping interests, but no uniformity or unity. It's great that there are so many different groups with similar goals trying different things and not agreeing on everything. I'd like to see that same sort of pluralism within the "Wikimedia universe" as well. I think it's helpful to have that because (1) no one and no organization here has all the right answers (if they even exist) and (2) having different groups autonously trying different things is more likely to lead to finding out what works best. None of that is possible if there's some sort of direct mandate through all institutions. Best regards, Sebastian

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Florence Devouard&lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I agree I agree I agree, but I would add that it is for the common good of WMF to have consultation with local chapters to know if a solution could be or not could be easily accepted by the communities. Surely the chapters have the feeling of the cultural environment of any wikipedians communities and of any subsequent reaction, but in any case everyone is responsible of his own decision. Ilario