Dear community,
As chair of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to announce that Erik Moeller has decided to resign from the board two days ago. Erik decided to reorient his activities in other directions, and I hope we'll continue to be able to work together constructively from here on.
A few days ago, Lodewijk pointed out to me that I forgot to announce clearly to this list that Michael Davis was no more board member, as planned at last october board meeting. As a reminder, Michael Davis had expressed the wish to move on and leave his seat for a while already. He officially quit the seat end of november. Michael has helped greatly in the first years of existence of the Foundation, so I hope you will have a thank you thought for him. You hardly ever heard of him, but he was really helpful a several critical moments in the life of the Foundation.
The board is consequently now back at 5 members, Kat Welsh, Frieda Brioschi, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales and myself. Michael seat is more or less reserved to our future treasurer, or if we can not find the treasurer as board member, at least to a skilled-financial oriented person.
Erik's seat is open again. The board agreed to propose the seat to a community member, and agreed on a person. The person has been approached and has not given any answer yet. There is no real urgency anyway. The seat will be an appointed one, up for new elections in a few months.
In a situation where we will welcome many more staff members not from the community, I think it is doubly important that the board membership be from the community. I will personally support an increase of the membership, with a focus on members coming from the community. I'd love as well having a seat or more being a representant from the chapters. Recently, there has been discussions over the limited professional skills of board members. At the same time, we are developing a staff mostly made of highly skilled professionals.
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of Wikipedia. I really mean the biggest. Maybe not so much the project itself, but the competition it will create, the PR consequences, the financial tsunami, the confusion in people minds (free as in free speech or as in free of charge). Many parties are trying to influence us, to buy us, and conflicts of interest are becoming the rule rather than the exception. There are power struggles on the path.
Rather than spending time bugging the board about whether we did a background check on Carolyn 18 months ago (we did not, period), I'd like the current community to realize that we are currently at a crossroad. The staff will hopefully stabilize and be successful under the leadership of Sue. I trust her to have this strength. But the organization in its whole is currently oscillating. We can try the path of the community, at the risk of being engulfed by the big ones. We can try the path of letting our future in the hands of the big shots, at the risk of loosing what is making us unique.
Best
Florence
On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
If that's the only two possibilities, then you've already admitted defeat.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
If that's the only two possibilities, then you've already admitted defeat.
Yes yes, it's a false dichotomy. I suspect she didn't really say what she meant to.
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
If that's the only two possibilities, then you've already admitted defeat.
You may add some middle path solutions. But not so many I fear
Ant
On Dec 16, 2007 10:21 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
If that's the only two possibilities, then you've already admitted defeat.
You may add some middle path solutions. But not so many I fear
Look, the background check thing is understandable, a big mistake, but an understandable one, although hiring a temp as COO maybe isn't. But if a board composed of community members can't ensure that someone or a team of someones is hired to produce regular financial statements which can be audited in under a month, then I don't think that board is acceptable. If you don't get that, then I don't think I have any hope left.
I think you're right on that there are a lot of big decisions ahead for the Foundation. But breath and pee and energy and love aren't going to be enough to put it down the right path.
I don't know. I'll have to sleep on it.
Florence Devouard wrote:
You may add some middle path solutions. But not so many I fear
There are solutions, of course.
1) "WMF as a legal body only". It is the present situation and I don't see a lot of differences between having elected or appointed Board members. Actually, in this case, I prefer appointed expert body. (But, who would appoint Board members? Board itself?)
2) "WMF as a representative democratic body". My opinion is that the better way of making such body is to make a real assembly (let's say, 50 members, but may be more, may be less). That body would elect experts for Board members.
3) "WMF as appointed body by chapters". While it is too early to talk about this option (I expect maturity of this idea when something like 50 chapters [including state level chapters in USA and other big countries] would be created), it may be a good solution in the future with fixing needed for some underrepresented contributors.
4) 2&3. Bicameral assembly: one elected by contributors, one elected by local chapters. Such assembly would appoint Board.
(In cases 2, 3 and 4 assembly may function on Internet, of course.)
* * *
While WMF is better the it was, there are still a number of systematic problems. The main problem *is* ambivalent position of the Board: something between despotic, oligarchic and representative democratic body. (Of course, in the sense of from where power comes, not in the sense of methods.)
I don't want to say which option is better. I just want to say that it is necessary to make a clear image to the community: What WMF is (not what Wikimedia is, but what WMF and its Board is)? Is it a communal or a private business?
Even it is a private business (or a business of a couple of people), it is not necessarily bad (there are a lot of good private foundations; actually, WMF started as a good private foundation).
But, community is confused and it needs answers. At least, how do *you* (Board members) see WMF in the next two or five years? If you are not possible to make a collective statement, please make personal statements.
Milos Rancic wrote:
While WMF is better the it was, there are still a number of systematic problems. The main problem *is* ambivalent position of the Board: something between despotic, oligarchic and representative democratic body. (Of course, in the sense of from where power comes, not in the sense of methods.)
This is a fundamental problem in democratic organizations, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly stated that Wikipedia (and hence Wikimedia) is not a democracy. Rulership structures want to get on with the business at hand, and it can be terribly frustrating when decisions must be made to wait for any kind of consensus from the populace. We even have difficulty defining just who that populace is, and that makes it more difficult to know who should be a participant in the consensus. While the Paris Commune of 1871 debated, the outside forces did not hesitate to do what was necessary to run them over.
I don't want to say which option is better. I just want to say that it is necessary to make a clear image to the community: What WMF is (not what Wikimedia is, but what WMF and its Board is)? Is it a communal or a private business?
There is an inherent flaw in the clause "make a clear image *to* the community". This begs for leadership in an area where the community should be providing a clearer picture. The Board should be facilitating that image, not defining it.
Even it is a private business (or a business of a couple of people), it is not necessarily bad (there are a lot of good private foundations; actually, WMF started as a good private foundation).
But, community is confused and it needs answers. At least, how do *you* (Board members) see WMF in the next two or five years? If you are not possible to make a collective statement, please make personal statements.
For now, only the personal statements are valuable. Purporting to make a collective statement can mislead the rest of us into believing that everyone on the Board thinks in the same way.
I also think we need to make better use of Wikimania in the governance process. There is a segment of the attendees who come from relatively close, and who need one very important level of service. At the same there is the other half of the attendees who have come from around the world, and who have shown enough dedication to the projects to do so. A question and answer session with the Board on the last day of the conference is not enough. A sequestered meeting between the Board and the Advisory Board does not put a positive message across unless it immediately reports to the attendees, asks for their input, and allows an opportunity to digest and absorb that input.
Ec
On Dec 18, 2007 10:55 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
While WMF is better the it was, there are still a number of systematic problems. The main problem *is* ambivalent position of the Board: something between despotic, oligarchic and representative democratic body. (Of course, in the sense of from where power comes, not in the sense of methods.)
This is a fundamental problem in democratic organizations, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly stated that Wikipedia (and hence Wikimedia) is not a democracy.
I don't know about the "...and hence"; WMF is not en.wikipedia
WMF is a traditional charity company organization, with the added wrinkle that most of the board of directors come from the community via open elections. In that sense we resemble a republic, not a democracy, but it's still not a governmental structure... it's a charity company, mostly-elected board and hired executive(s) and staff.
Rulership structures want to get on with the business at hand, and it can be terribly frustrating when decisions must be made to wait for any kind of consensus from the populace. We even have difficulty defining just who that populace is, and that makes it more difficult to know who should be a participant in the consensus. While the Paris Commune of 1871 debated, the outside forces did not hesitate to do what was necessary to run them over.
I think you're confusing the projects and Foundation too much, and misreading how the Foundation works.
Governmental analogies only go so far, and I think yours have gone past the breaking point...
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 10:55 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
While WMF is better the it was, there are still a number of systematic problems. The main problem *is* ambivalent position of the Board: something between despotic, oligarchic and representative democratic body. (Of course, in the sense of from where power comes, not in the sense of methods.)
This is a fundamental problem in democratic organizations, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly stated that Wikipedia (and hence Wikimedia) is not a democracy.
I don't know about the "...and hence"; WMF is not en.wikipedia
Nobody is saying that it is.
WMF is a traditional charity company organization, with the added wrinkle that most of the board of directors come from the community via open elections. In that sense we resemble a republic, not a democracy, but it's still not a governmental structure... it's a charity company, mostly-elected board and hired executive(s) and staff.
I'm sure we could have long philosophical debates about the difference between a democracy and a republic, or between governance and government, and I'm sure that when and where that distinction is important I'll be right there insisting on it.
Rulership structures want to get on with the business at hand, and it can be terribly frustrating when decisions must be made to wait for any kind of consensus from the populace. We even have difficulty defining just who that populace is, and that makes it more difficult to know who should be a participant in the consensus. While the Paris Commune of 1871 debated, the outside forces did not hesitate to do what was necessary to run them over.
I think you're confusing the projects and Foundation too much, and misreading how the Foundation works.
Governmental analogies only go so far, and I think yours have gone past the breaking point...
I disagree, of course. It's in the nature of publics to debate minor issues to death, and be completely silent when their input is needed.
Ec
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects? (Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a professional board with the decision making still in the hands of people that share our values.
I would agree with the mixed approach. A board with an executive committee of community members, and a governance and audit committee of outside experts. There simply is no substitute for Board expertise - many crises have been prevented through trained and knowledgeable leadership above management. Additionally, I think there are benefits inherent in having 'outsiders' on the Board as long as they do not dominate it - an unbiased, outsider perspective is often extremely helpful and itself can avert many errors in judgement (see George Bush). I think there is no real danger of being bought - the bylaws seem to legislate against it, and certainly the community would be destroyed.
As far as perceiving Google as a threat - I think that is a mistake, really. An encyclopedic effort on the part of Google is no more a threat to Wikipedia than any paper encyclopedia has been (unless they go nuts and delist our links from search results). Rather, it is a furtherance of Wikipedia's mission - and evidence that it is successful and compelling. Competition, as such, can only improve the entire field.
~Nathan
On Dec 16, 2007 10:18 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects? (Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a professional board with the decision making still in the hands of people that share our values.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects? (Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a professional board with the decision making still in the hands of people that share our values.
I'm also somewhat confused on this, and it seems out of keeping with standard practice. For example, most private universities (in the US, anyway) have a Board of Trustees that is ultimately responsible for direction setting (and in theory can order or veto nearly anything), but in practice they don't actually run the university. Instead, various executive staff subordinate to the board do that. When specific expertise is needed, such as someone who can administer a large campus, or someone who can manage the financials, they're hired, e.g. as President or as Treasurer. But they aren't part of the board, which is ideally made up of people selected for their commitment to and understanding of the overall mission, not for their specific technical skills.
The Foundation does seem to be going vaguely in that direction already, for example with position of Executive Director, who has significant executive authority but is not a member of the board. Is there a reason that path isn't a reasonable one to continue on?
-Mark
On 17/12/2007, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The Foundation does seem to be going vaguely in that direction already, for example with position of Executive Director, who has significant executive authority but is not a member of the board. Is there a reason that path isn't a reasonable one to continue on?
No, that's an entirely sensible path and what most nonprofits do. But people keep forgetting that the Wikimedia Foundation is so tiny it barely exists. There are times when we tick the box for "> 100,000" and times when we tick the box for "< 10" - this is one of the latter.
- d.
Delirium wrote:
I'm also somewhat confused on this, and it seems out of keeping with standard practice. For example, most private universities (in the US, anyway) have a Board of Trustees that is ultimately responsible for direction setting (and in theory can order or veto nearly anything), but in practice they don't actually run the university. Instead, various executive staff subordinate to the board do that. When specific expertise is needed, such as someone who can administer a large campus, or someone who can manage the financials, they're hired, e.g. as President or as Treasurer. But they aren't part of the board, which is ideally made up of people selected for their commitment to and understanding of the overall mission, not for their specific technical skills.
The Foundation does seem to be going vaguely in that direction already, for example with position of Executive Director, who has significant executive authority but is not a member of the board. Is there a reason that path isn't a reasonable one to continue on?
There is nothing wrong with this vision. The big distinction between WMF and these universities is in their origins. I would be hard pressed to think of a successful university that grew out of a grass roots movement. Most of these institutions began with an imposed governance structure fulfilling the needs of the state, the church, business or a major philanthropist. In some respects we may have a philanthropical origin, with governance structures snuck in as an afterthought.
On top of that we struggle with some tough philosophical problems about what is an encyclopedia, or the accessibility of knowledge and its ownership. These are intractable problems which established institutions have successfully avoided.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects? (Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a professional board with the decision making still in the hands of people that share our values.
There is probably already substantial agreement about having the majority of the Board from the community. Indeed, it would be difficult for a pure outsider to wrap his head around some of the philosophy behind Wikipedia.
The difficulty with professional advice is not in being willing to take professional advice, but in knowing how to take that advice. Most of us can honestly say that if somehow we became members of the Board we would be willing to take that advice, but faced with the real situation it is too easy to believe that we are following advice when we are really fashioning that advice to our own agendas.
Given that we want a community based Board, choosing members from that community is the difficult problem since neither pure appointment nor pure election is wholly acceptable. Remember too that even though Erik topped the last ballot he was still only supported by 40% of those who cast ballots. This suggests some very deep divisions in the community.
Ec
On Dec 18, 2007 8:53 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Remember too that even though Erik topped the last ballot he was still only supported by 40% of those who cast ballots. This suggests some very deep divisions in the community.
i don't think so.
any such percentages simply reflect the system of voting. (i mean, if we had a system with fewer candidates and seats, percentages would of course be different)
theoretically, one could of course then argue that our current system of approval voting creates divisions not unity, but that would be another discussion altogether.
oscar
[offlist]
On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
[snip]
I think it's important to note that *everyone* makes mistakes. So there is far less of a trade-off then you might fear.
Florence at times you are too humble, but I believe that this is a quality in an organization which is at times afflicted with excessive hubris. When I think about the current controversies, I find myself coming back to things you wanted to do in the past which would have avoided them. I think we all would do well to listen more to you.
I have a lot of thoughts about the advisory board, and how little they seem to have done for us. The whole concept of appointing big names seems more like payoff and less like wisdom as time goes on. Finding good people with the right interests, skills, and without huge conflicts of interest is just hard no matter how you cut it.. At least when you pull from the community you are sure to get people who love and understand the internals of the projects. Your vision of simply keeping a majority is simply a good one, and it's the only thing that gives me hope. There *are* many good outsiders we can choose from to fill the balance, but it will take time and introspection to make the right decisions.
Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving on to a position of even more power. So that might create some confusion, but I understand that not everything can be announced at once and that stuff isn't final.
I'm sorry that it's been so long since I've written to you. Honestly, I'd lost some faith in the organization. I'm glad to see that you are still shaking things up and doing you best to keep moving in the interest of the public and the community. Please, keep in touch even if I forget.
Thank you for all your hard work! -- Greg
From Messedrocker, who "wouldn't touch the mailing list even if my urine's
composition changed to be more wikimedia"
the typical corporate handlement will be handled by the pros and the wikimedians will shrug and accept however the wikimedian majority will get in the way of the pros trying to ruin wikimedia that way, we could have a minority of experienced board members, and it could help someone relay my words of wisdom to the mailing list
On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I have a lot of thoughts about the advisory board, and how little they seem to have done for us. The whole concept of appointing big names seems more like payoff and less like wisdom as time goes on. Finding good people with the right interests, skills, and without huge conflicts of interest is just hard no matter how you cut it.. At least when you pull from the community you are sure to get people who love and understand the internals of the projects. Your vision of simply keeping a majority is simply a good one, and it's the only thing that gives me hope. There *are* many good outsiders we can choose from to fill the balance, but it will take time and introspection to make the right decisions.
On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving on to a position of even more power. So that might create some confusion, but I understand that not everything can be announced at once and that stuff isn't final.
Aww, c'mon, you gotta tell me. I promise I won't tell anyone.
On Dec 16, 2007 11:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving on to a position of even more power. So that might create some confusion, but I understand that not everything can be announced at once and that stuff isn't final.
Aww, c'mon, you gotta tell me. I promise I won't tell anyone.
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving on to a position of even more power. So that might create some confusion, but I understand that not everything can be announced at once and that stuff isn't final.
Aww, c'mon, you gotta tell me. I promise I won't tell anyone.
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
Head of the cabal of course.
On 17/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving on to a position of even more power. So that might create some
Aww, c'mon, you gotta tell me. I promise I won't tell anyone.
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
Head of the cabal of course.
That's James F., who tried handing the job back and discovered you can't do that.
- d.
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
Head of the cabal of course.
That's James F., who tried handing the job back and discovered you can't do that.
Rumours of me being annoited a God-Prince are entirely unsubstantiatable. Deliberately so. :-)
Yrs,
Hoi, So this Wikimania photo showing you wearing a halo is photo-shopped ? Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 17, 2007 2:19 PM, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com
wrote:
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
Head of the cabal of course.
That's James F., who tried handing the job back and discovered you can't do that.
Rumours of me being annoited a God-Prince are entirely unsubstantiatable. Deliberately so. :-)
Yrs,
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James F is the devil incarnate.
On Dec 17, 2007 7:04 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So this Wikimania photo showing you wearing a halo is photo-shopped ? Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 17, 2007 2:19 PM, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com
wrote:
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
Head of the cabal of course.
That's James F., who tried handing the job back and discovered you can't do that.
Rumours of me being annoited a God-Prince are entirely unsubstantiatable. Deliberately so. :-)
Yrs,
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 2:19 PM, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com
wrote:
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
Head of the cabal of course.
That's James F., who tried handing the job back and discovered you can't do that.
Rumours of me being annoited a God-Prince are entirely unsubstantiatable. Deliberately so. :-)
So this Wikimania photo showing you wearing a halo is photo-shopped ?
Swamp gas. Camera artifact. Wikimedia UK urges scepticism in all such cases.
- d.
On 2007.12.16 23:04:39 -0500, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com scribbled 0.7K characters:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving on to a position of even more power. So that might create some confusion, but I understand that not everything can be announced at once and that stuff isn't final.
Aww, c'mon, you gotta tell me. I promise I won't tell anyone.
We already have one god-king, and not everybody remembers electing him. What position of more power could anybody be talking about?
--Andrew Whitworth
This may be wildly off-base, and is pure speculation on my part - but could Erik be getting involved with Knol?
The timing is certainly appropriate, it would seem to fit the step-up wording, and would also explain why Florence throws in that otherwise inexplicable paragraph about Knol being our enemy into what was an announcement about some board changes. (Unless Florence is in the habit of throwing into such announcements whatever is on her mind at the time, of course....)
-- gwern HRM Faber sugar Choe fulminate MSEE W50 monarchist CCSQ Sergeyev
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
This may be wildly off-base, and is pure speculation on my part
- but could Erik be getting involved with Knol?
Oh, we clearly should start a new project with sci-fi/conspiracy novels written under a free license. There is so much good stuff in these speculations! Actually, Google's value as narrative (or basis of a cult religion) might well exceed its value as a commercial investment. There are so many myths around that company name. Their spin doctors are probably more skilled than their algorithm engineers.
How is that Wikipedia movie going, by the way?
On 17/12/2007, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
How is that Wikipedia movie going, by the way?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page_%28movie%29
- d.
In the interests of not letting this thread die:
I'd suggest that Wikimedia look at similar (as close as possible) foundations in the United States, and possibly elsewhere as well, for ideas on how to move forward. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel when you have a design that works - Wikimedia adopted a fairly conventional structure for its board, and it should continue to rely on governance concepts that have been proven. Organizations like Mozilla, EPIC, EFF, the ACLU and others might be targets not only for adapting their governance style but also for attracting outside members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Additionally, you could investigate recruiting Board members from academic and encyclopedic organizations with similar missions.
A sensible structure has to be one that values expertise and maintains the centrality of the Wikimedia community, as well as represents the interests of chapters outside en.wiki. I think you could achieve this simply by expanding the board and assigning decision making authority to different committees - i.e. audit, governance, executive, financial. I think this is a fairly standard Board design, and I'd be interested to see proposals from Mike Godwin on this topic (assuming he has experience in the field of non-profit management aside from Wikimedia).
Nathan
On Dec 17, 2007 10:54 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
How is that Wikipedia movie going, by the way?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page_%28movie%29
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan Awrich wrote:
In the interests of not letting this thread die:
I'd suggest that Wikimedia look at similar (as close as possible) foundations in the United States, and possibly elsewhere as well, for ideas on how to move forward.
Actually, we already did that to a certain extent. Mike drafted us a fairly long document on the topic last summer.
There is no reason to reinvent the wheel
when you have a design that works - Wikimedia adopted a fairly conventional structure for its board, and it should continue to rely on governance concepts that have been proven. Organizations like Mozilla, EPIC, EFF, the ACLU and others might be targets not only for adapting their governance style but also for attracting outside members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Additionally, you could investigate recruiting Board members from academic and encyclopedic organizations with similar missions.
Some previous board members were very insistant that we should primarily recruit from the community.
A sensible structure has to be one that values expertise and maintains the centrality of the Wikimedia community, as well as represents the interests of chapters outside en.wiki. I think you could achieve this simply by expanding the board and assigning decision making authority to different committees - i.e. audit, governance, executive, financial.
Agreed. Recent development lead the board to consider expanding itself This is currently under discussion. Note that we already have a beginning of committee structures, with the audit com, the ED com, etc... (I am a bit perplex to see you refer to "chapters outside en.wiki, but I take it as a typo type of thing).
ant
I think this is a fairly standard Board design, and I'd be
interested to see proposals from Mike Godwin on this topic (assuming he has experience in the field of non-profit management aside from Wikimedia).
Nathan
On Dec 17, 2007 10:54 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
How is that Wikipedia movie going, by the way?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page_%28movie%29
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[onlist]
On Dec 18, 2007 1:08 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Nathan Awrich wrote:
There is no reason to reinvent the wheel
when you have a design that works - Wikimedia adopted a fairly conventional structure for its board, and it should continue to rely on governance concepts that have been proven. Organizations like Mozilla, EPIC, EFF, the ACLU and others might be targets not only for adapting their governance style but also for attracting outside members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Additionally, you could investigate recruiting Board members from academic and encyclopedic organizations with similar missions.
Some previous board members were very insistant that we should primarily recruit from the community.
indeed it was and still is at least this previous board member's firm belief concerning open *staff-positions*: 1. that these should be openly advertised before being filled 2. that these should always be advertised to the community in the first place, but not exclusively
oscar
On 12/18/07, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In the interests of not letting this thread die:
I'd suggest that Wikimedia look at similar (as close as possible) foundations in the United States, and possibly elsewhere as well, for ideas on how to move forward. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel when you have a design that works - Wikimedia adopted a fairly conventional structure for its board, and it should continue to rely on governance concepts that have been proven. Organizations like Mozilla, EPIC, EFF, the ACLU and others might be targets not only for adapting their governance style but also for attracting outside members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Additionally, you could investigate recruiting Board members from academic and encyclopedic organizations with similar missions.
Heh, sorry for the Off-topic joke, but with the migration to San Francisco, I can't resist...
With EPIC, you can't possibly mean the End Poverty In California movement by Upton Sinclair, do you...?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Heh, no ;-P www.epic.org
On Dec 17, 2007 8:53 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/07, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In the interests of not letting this thread die:
I'd suggest that Wikimedia look at similar (as close as possible) foundations in the United States, and possibly elsewhere as well, for ideas on how to move forward. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel when you have a design that works - Wikimedia adopted a fairly conventional structure for its board, and it should continue to rely on governance concepts that have been proven. Organizations like Mozilla, EPIC, EFF, the ACLU and others might be targets not only for adapting their governance style but also for attracting outside members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Additionally, you could investigate recruiting Board members from academic and encyclopedic organizations with similar missions.
Heh, sorry for the Off-topic joke, but with the migration to San Francisco, I can't resist...
With EPIC, you can't possibly mean the End Poverty In California movement by Upton Sinclair, do you...?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2007.12.17 16:41:09 +0100, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se scribbled 0.6K characters:
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
This may be wildly off-base, and is pure speculation on my part
- but could Erik be getting involved with Knol?
Oh, we clearly should start a new project with sci-fi/conspiracy novels written under a free license. There is so much good stuff in these speculations! Actually, Google's value as narrative (or basis of a cult religion) might well exceed its value as a commercial investment. There are so many myths around that company name. Their spin doctors are probably more skilled than their algorithm engineers.
How is that Wikipedia movie going, by the way?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
What, this old thing https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Raul654/Wikipedia_the_Movie?
It's going fine, thanks for asking. We're in preproduction right now, and as soon as we finish casting (should be around when SUL and DNF are finished), we'll start filming.
-- gwern X400 NAVCM F-22 SERT rain RIT Gulf BLACKER clones cryptanalysis
On 17/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
[offlist]
I hate it when that happens too. OTOH, I hate lists that default to reply-to-sender more.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
[offlist]
I hate it when that happens too. OTOH, I hate lists that default to reply-to-sender more.
I wondered about that tag too. It is certainly an incentive for people to read the message more than the ones without the tag, it makes them feel as though they are privy to someone's secret thoughts. ;-)
It struck me as a guardedly honest response to Florence with a good tone, so maybe it was sent to the list in error. :-)
Ec
On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The board is consequently now back at 5 members, Kat Welsh, Frieda Brioschi, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales and myself.
Thanks for the announcement. I was under the impression that Jimmy's activity on the board was nominal, is he more active then that?
In a situation where we will welcome many more staff members not from the community, I think it is doubly important that the board membership be from the community. I will personally support an increase of the membership, with a focus on members coming from the community.
Maybe it would be prudent to write something to this effect into the bylaws, to ensure proper community representation in perpetuity?
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed) ... Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*.
I agree with your assesment, the first option is far preferrable. Somewhere in the middle would be nice too, but we should never allow the board to become completely out of touch with the community they represent. Also, what was the killer-deal with Google? Did we miss something big?
I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of Wikipedia.
Normally google's aims have been to counteract other companies, such as microsoft. It astounds me to learn that Google is trying to go head-to-head with a non-profit. I dont know that I'm afraid of the "knol" as a true competitor to us, although google's brand recognitioncould help it along. you also have to worry that perhaps there aren't enough people in the world who actually want to write an encyclopedia to fuel Wikipedia, Citizendium, and Knol (among others). Maybe this is the impetus that will drive an overhaul of Wikipedia, making it more friendly for the hard-working authors, and less friendly for the trolls. A "Wikipedia Renaissance" would do a lot for our image, and could be a PR stunt that kills Knol before it ever starts.
But the organization in its whole is currently oscillating. We can try the path of the community, at the risk of being engulfed by the big ones. We can try the path of letting our future in the hands of the big shots, at the risk of loosing what is making us unique.
If I may ask (and I certainly dont expect a good answer), what kinds of "big shots" are we talking about? Has the board been approached by such a person/people? Getting in with Google has been a financial miracle for the Mozilla people, and they seem to have kept their way without succumbing to too much corporate influence. Maybe this is the kind of issue that should be presented plainly to the community, for the community to decide.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Normally google's aims have been to counteract other companies, such as microsoft. It astounds me to learn that Google is trying to go head-to-head with a non-profit.
No-one knows what Knol will be. At the moment it's a Rorschach blot that people are projecting their own hopes and fears onto. The blog post was clearly floated as a trial balloon, with at least some intent of seeing what good ideas for them other people came up with. (Hence why I think we need to push really hard for them to make it entirely freely-reusable content, and get others to ask for that too.)
I dont know that I'm afraid of the "knol" as a true competitor to us, although google's brand recognitioncould help it along.
Remember that Google Answers fell flat on its backside.
you also have to worry that perhaps there aren't enough people in the world who actually want to write an encyclopedia to fuel Wikipedia, Citizendium, and Knol (among others).
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
If I may ask (and I certainly dont expect a good answer), what kinds of "big shots" are we talking about? Has the board been approached by such a person/people? Getting in with Google has been a financial miracle for the Mozilla people, and they seem to have kept their way without succumbing to too much corporate influence. Maybe this is the kind of issue that should be presented plainly to the community, for the community to decide.
In the last Board election, some people were pushing strongly for a professional board.
- d.
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No-one knows what Knol will be. At the moment it's a Rorschach blot that people are projecting their own hopes and fears onto.
...like Citizendium this time last year.
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No-one knows what Knol will be. At the moment it's a Rorschach blot that people are projecting their own hopes and fears onto.
...like Citizendium this time last year.
Excuse me while I go steal that line for my blog entry.
- d.
you also have to worry that perhaps there aren't enough people in the world who actually want to write an encyclopedia to fuel Wikipedia, Citizendium, and Knol (among others).
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
That's not my point here. There is a certain number of people in this world who are going to be interested in actually "writing" an encyclopedia (as opposed to the people who are happy to edit, revise, or do other things to support the writing community). A lot of writers are already entrenched in these projects.
The one-author, one-page idea (from what I've heard knol is supposed to be) sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Crackpot theories and all sorts of other nonsense that gets regularly edited out of Wikipedia is going to get pages in the top google-search ranks, that nobody can edit but the crackpot authors themselves. I can easily see, especially with no editorial control, that the signal-to-noise ratio is going to spiral downward rather quickly with this project. Wikipedia could end up becoming substantially more reliable in comparison.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
That's not my point here. There is a certain number of people in this world who are going to be interested in actually "writing" an encyclopedia (as opposed to the people who are happy to edit, revise, or do other things to support the writing community).
Isn't one of the major lessons we've learned from the past six years of Wikipedia (seven now, I guess) that the number of people in the world interested in writing an encyclopedia is a lot bigger than we ever anticipated it being?
The one-author, one-page idea (from what I've heard knol is supposed to be) sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
Yes and no. It's workable, *if* there are other caveats which haven't been announced yet - some kind of weighting, structuring, etc. We shall see.
On Dec 17, 2007 3:57 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
That's not my point here. There is a certain number of people in this world who are going to be interested in actually "writing" an encyclopedia (as opposed to the people who are happy to edit, revise, or do other things to support the writing community).
Isn't one of the major lessons we've learned from the past six years of Wikipedia (seven now, I guess) that the number of people in the world interested in writing an encyclopedia is a lot bigger than we ever anticipated it being?
The one-author, one-page idea (from what I've heard knol is supposed to be) sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
Yes and no. It's workable, *if* there are other caveats which haven't been announced yet - some kind of weighting, structuring, etc. We shall see.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
This is already completely possible to do without any central structure at all... there are billions of informational web pages with single author control up, including many educational or encyclopedic type ones.
The question is indexing and quality control and interlinking and so forth.
Wikipedia solved a whole bunch of problems, from the technology to HCI to structuring a project attractive to contributors (which, despite the voluminous criticisms, is still clearly true today).
Google has not to my knowledge announced how they intend to address those issues for Knol.
If it's "like Wikipedia but with WP:OWN as a default state rather than policy against it" then I don't know how that helps the quality control issue which the community does rather nicely for WP.
Hoi, When you consider the size and the relevance of Wiktionary or Commons then I cringe when people equate the WMF with Wikipedia. Both are of a size and importance where they deserve an organisation of their own when the WMF is considered to be Wikipedia only. This is luckily not the case. It is however galling to have to continue to beat the drum...
THE WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION IS NOT ONLY ABOUT WIKIPEDIA
Thanks, Gerard
On Dec 18, 2007 12:57 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
That's not my point here. There is a certain number of people in this world who are going to be interested in actually "writing" an encyclopedia (as opposed to the people who are happy to edit, revise, or do other things to support the writing community).
Isn't one of the major lessons we've learned from the past six years of Wikipedia (seven now, I guess) that the number of people in the world interested in writing an encyclopedia is a lot bigger than we ever anticipated it being?
The one-author, one-page idea (from what I've heard knol is supposed to be) sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
Yes and no. It's workable, *if* there are other caveats which haven't been announced yet - some kind of weighting, structuring, etc. We shall see.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 18, 2007 1:19 AM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
THE WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION IS NOT ONLY ABOUT WIKIPEDIA
... I sincerely hope that was tongue in cheek ...
Hard to claim it as a typo since two keys separate "m" and "p"!
-- Ayelie (User:Editor at Large)
Without following the whole thread, Wikimedia Foundation is also about Open Content, Open Education and Free Culture; a movement much much bigger and more relevant to modern times than Wikipedia in itself.
--Anirudh
On Dec 18, 2007 11:54 AM, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 1:19 AM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
THE WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION IS NOT ONLY ABOUT WIKIPEDIA
... I sincerely hope that was tongue in cheek ...
Hard to claim it as a typo since two keys separate "m" and "p"!
-- Ayelie (User:Editor at Large) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bleh. Ignore the last comment.
On Dec 18, 2007 6:14 PM, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Without following the whole thread, Wikimedia Foundation is also about Open Content, Open Education and Free Culture; a movement much much bigger and more relevant to modern times than Wikipedia in itself.
--Anirudh
On Dec 18, 2007 11:54 AM, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 1:19 AM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
THE WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION IS NOT ONLY ABOUT WIKIPEDIA
... I sincerely hope that was tongue in cheek ...
Hard to claim it as a typo since two keys separate "m" and "p"!
-- Ayelie (User:Editor at Large) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
That's not my point here. There is a certain number of people in this world who are going to be interested in actually "writing" an encyclopedia (as opposed to the people who are happy to edit, revise, or do other things to support the writing community).
Isn't one of the major lessons we've learned from the past six years of Wikipedia (seven now, I guess) that the number of people in the world interested in writing an encyclopedia is a lot bigger than we ever anticipated it being?
Probably, but it's part of a much wider trend There has been similar growth in other areas from social networking to YouTube to MMORPGs to blogging. I think there is also a widespread dissatisfaction with and distrust of established social and political structures. Discussions about these can now take place in ways that previously were technically impossible. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
The one-author, one-page idea (from what I've heard knol is supposed to be) sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
Yes and no. It's workable, *if* there are other caveats which haven't been announced yet - some kind of weighting, structuring, etc. We shall see.
It beats having to face the question of NPOV. Insisting on a neutral article on a subject like Israeli-Palestinian relations reflects one of the most important features of Wikipedia. A reader who is confident that he can find a reasonably balanced treatment of the subject will come back when he can't trust other sites.
A one-author, one page policy would allow separate biased articles on either side of the subject.
Ec
I would like to thank Erik Moeller and Michael Davis for all your hard work for the Foundation during the times you've been Board members.
Thanks!
On Dec 16, 2007 7:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear community,
As chair of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to announce that Erik Moeller has decided to resign from the board two days ago. Erik decided to reorient his activities in other directions, and I hope we'll continue to be able to work together constructively from here on.
A few days ago, Lodewijk pointed out to me that I forgot to announce clearly to this list that Michael Davis was no more board member, as planned at last october board meeting. As a reminder, Michael Davis had expressed the wish to move on and leave his seat for a while already. He officially quit the seat end of november. Michael has helped greatly in the first years of existence of the Foundation, so I hope you will have a thank you thought for him. You hardly ever heard of him, but he was really helpful a several critical moments in the life of the Foundation.
The board is consequently now back at 5 members, Kat Welsh, Frieda Brioschi, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales and myself. Michael seat is more or less reserved to our future treasurer, or if we can not find the treasurer as board member, at least to a skilled-financial oriented person.
Erik's seat is open again. The board agreed to propose the seat to a community member, and agreed on a person. The person has been approached and has not given any answer yet. There is no real urgency anyway. The seat will be an appointed one, up for new elections in a few months.
In a situation where we will welcome many more staff members not from the community, I think it is doubly important that the board membership be from the community. I will personally support an increase of the membership, with a focus on members coming from the community. I'd love as well having a seat or more being a representant from the chapters. Recently, there has been discussions over the limited professional skills of board members. At the same time, we are developing a staff mostly made of highly skilled professionals.
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of Wikipedia. I really mean the biggest. Maybe not so much the project itself, but the competition it will create, the PR consequences, the financial tsunami, the confusion in people minds (free as in free speech or as in free of charge). Many parties are trying to influence us, to buy us, and conflicts of interest are becoming the rule rather than the exception. There are power struggles on the path.
Rather than spending time bugging the board about whether we did a background check on Carolyn 18 months ago (we did not, period), I'd like the current community to realize that we are currently at a crossroad. The staff will hopefully stabilize and be successful under the leadership of Sue. I trust her to have this strength. But the organization in its whole is currently oscillating. We can try the path of the community, at the risk of being engulfed by the big ones. We can try the path of letting our future in the hands of the big shots, at the risk of loosing what is making us unique.
Best
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 17, 2007 2:01 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Michael has helped greatly in the first years of existence of the Foundation, so I hope you will have a thank you thought for him. You hardly ever heard of him, but he was really helpful a several critical moments in the life of the Foundation.
...
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
Michael Davis is a good example of how there's room for a mixed structure for the board, with community members who get the projects and the culture, and people with valuable skills and experience who come from outside the community.
On Dec 17, 2007 4:01 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear community,
I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of Wikipedia. I really mean the biggest. Maybe not so much the project itself, but the competition it will create, the PR consequences, the financial tsunami, the confusion in people minds (free as in free speech or as in free of charge).
Hi Anthere,
as some of you know, I am quite focussed on monitoring media items about wikipedia. Out of 150 news items in Germany about Google Knol, not a single one of them did *not* mention Wikipedia. This is a media perception thing, since some of the journalists do not know about the existence of encyclopedias beside wikipedia any more...
While I agree that Google Knol's effect will be larger than just the project itself, I do not see a threat in it - unless one starts to think that Wikipedia has some kind of monopoly on Knowledge or encyclopedic texts. The consequences you mentioned have always been there, when britannica made their free-of-charge-trial, when some *pedia-spinoffs decided to use a non-free license, when mirrors introduced advertisements, when WMF for some reason decided to leave the impression that it is now paying illustrators.... A project does not turn from rotten to golden just because you put "Google" in front of it and there are far to few facts out there to give a justified opinion whether it will fail or succeed (by any metric).
My advise is to wait until the project has actually surfaced, to analyse it (maybe also to play with it) and to look carefully which parts might be adaptable. And not to consider it a threat, neither in public statements nor in thinking.
Mathias
Lovely - except I seem to have missed the announcement of where, if anywhere WMF-related, Erik is going from here. Was this announced later on in the thread?
Or is that proclamation being delayed? Or is it just none of our business?
CMOdi profanum vulgus et arceo.> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> From: Anthere9@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:01:27 +0100> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] update in board of trustees membership> > Dear community,> > As chair of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, I would like > to announce that Erik Moeller has decided to resign from the board two > days ago. Erik decided to reorient his activities in other directions, > and I hope we'll continue to be able to work together constructively > from here on.> > A few days ago, Lodewijk pointed out to me that I forgot to announce > clearly to this list that Michael Davis was no more board member, as > planned at last october board meeting. As a reminder, Michael Davis had > expressed the wish to move on and leave his seat for a while already. He > officially quit the seat end of november. Michael has helped greatly in > the first years of existence of the Foundation, so I hope you will have > a thank you thought for him. You hardly ever heard of him, but he was > really helpful a several critical moments in the life of the Foundation.> > > The board is consequently now back at 5 members, Kat Welsh, Frieda > Brioschi, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales and myself.> Michael seat is more or less reserved to our future treasurer, or if we > can not find the treasurer as board member, at least to a > skilled-financial oriented person.> > Erik's seat is open again. The board agreed to propose the seat to a > community member, and agreed on a person. The person has been approached > and has not given any answer yet. There is no real urgency anyway.> The seat will be an appointed one, up for new elections in a few months.> > In a situation where we will welcome many more staff members not from > the community, I think it is doubly important that the board membership > be from the community. I will personally support an increase of the > membership, with a focus on members coming from the community. I'd love > as well having a seat or more being a representant from the chapters.> Recently, there has been discussions over the limited professional > skills of board members. At the same time, we are developing a staff > mostly made of highly skilled professionals.> > I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly > made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be > top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a > background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such > as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee > wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, > without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized > organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.> > Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very > skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get > it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.> > My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same > time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board > members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.> > I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I > think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of > Wikipedia. I really mean the biggest. Maybe not so much the project > itself, but the competition it will create, the PR consequences, the > financial tsunami, the confusion in people minds (free as in free speech > or as in free of charge). Many parties are trying to influence us, to > buy us, and conflicts of interest are becoming the rule rather than the > exception. There are power struggles on the path.> > Rather than spending time bugging the board about whether we did a > background check on Carolyn 18 months ago (we did not, period), I'd like > the current community to realize that we are currently at a crossroad. > The staff will hopefully stabilize and be successful under the > leadership of Sue. I trust her to have this strength. But the > organization in its whole is currently oscillating. We can try the path > of the community, at the risk of being engulfed by the big ones. We can > try the path of letting our future in the hands of the big shots, at the > risk of loosing what is making us unique.> > > > Best> > Florence> > > > > _______________________________________________> foundation-l mailing list> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _________________________________________________________________ Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. http://www.searchgamesbox.com
On 12/17/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
In a situation where we will welcome many more staff members not from the community, I think it is doubly important that the board membership be from the community. I will personally support an increase of the membership, with a focus on members coming from the community. I'd love as well having a seat or more being a representant from the chapters. Recently, there has been discussions over the limited professional skills of board members. At the same time, we are developing a staff mostly made of highly skilled professionals.
In the event that the chapters were to get an earmarked seat on the board, would this representative be an appointed position, or elected by the chapters in some form? If elected by the chapters, how would the voting be accomplished? One chapter, one vote? Members of the boards of all chapters having a single personal vote?
Frankly I have absolute difficulty in seeing how any vote by chapters for a trustee would be anything but a great pain all round. The problems this would create down the line in the way chapters decide to constitute themselves can hardly be overlooked. Just think about the situation in the US right now, and project where it will head from there, if every chapter gets one vote...
Method of election aside, is this the direction the composition of the board should evolve in general? This many seats from the community, this many seats from chapters, this many from the technical side, this many seats from wikimania organisation, this many from the financial side, this many from the licencing and IP side of things, this many from the arbcoms of different projects... the list is endless on how we could earmark seats by focusing on one or another aspect of our operations...
I think it would serve us fairly well if there weren't earmarked seats, but people on the board made choices that through appointment balanced the board, and thus got trustees in, who on their merits were useful for the composition of the board. If you feel personally that a person active in the chapters side would be good to have on board, wouldn't it be simplest all round to appoint them directly without specifying that was a position reserved for chapters.
Or am I missing something here? Is there some specific reason why a chapters person is needed on the board?
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
This is the more honest email that I have read in this mailing list in these last days.
Ilario
On Dec 17, 2007 4:01 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear community,
As chair of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to announce that Erik Moeller has decided to resign from the board two days ago. Erik decided to reorient his activities in other directions, and I hope we'll continue to be able to work together constructively from here on.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org