Circling back to a subject that I've mentioned before, I favor having meetings of the WMF Board be open and recorded by default, with limited exceptions for discussions of legally privileged information and other subjects for which there is a strong reason that deliberations should remain private. Note that "wiki-political sensitivity" is not one of those reasons.
I hope that recent events illustrate that it may be better to be transparent from the beginning than try to suppress information that eventually leaks out or emerges after a lengthy series of questions.
The WMF Board minutes tend to be brief, and the Board's deliberations are rarely public. This is disappointing for an organization in the open source movement. WMF should be an exemplar of transparent and open governance.
To illustrate the kind of detail that can be omitted from Board minutes and the temptation to omit information for questionable reasons, I suggest this clip from the British satire "Yes, Minister", in which two civil servants discuss the Prime Minister's wish to suppress the publication of a chapter of a book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s
I hope that, as the WMF Board moves forward, it transforms into a model of transparency and openness; less "Yes, Minister" and paralysis and resistance to the community, and more transparency and vigor in public service. Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Pine
On 3 Mar 2016, at 5:31 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Circling back to a subject that I've mentioned before, I favor having meetings of the WMF Board be open and recorded by default, with limited exceptions for discussions of legally privileged information and other subjects for which there is a strong reason that deliberations should remain private. Note that "wiki-political sensitivity" is not one of those reasons.
I hope that recent events illustrate that it may be better to be transparent from the beginning than try to suppress information that eventually leaks out or emerges after a lengthy series of questions.
The WMF Board minutes tend to be brief, and the Board's deliberations are rarely public. This is disappointing for an organization in the open source movement. WMF should be an exemplar of transparent and open governance.
To illustrate the kind of detail that can be omitted from Board minutes and the temptation to omit information for questionable reasons, I suggest this clip from the British satire "Yes, Minister", in which two civil servants discuss the Prime Minister's wish to suppress the publication of a chapter of a book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s
I hope that, as the WMF Board moves forward, it transforms into a model of transparency and openness; less "Yes, Minister" and paralysis and resistance to the community, and more transparency and vigor in public service. Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Pine
I cannot be more supportive of this proposal.
Let’s have the Board meetings be recorded. If they cannot be recorded, then I’d like the WMF to improve their meeting minutes.
I was thinking that minutes need to be recorded by an appointed scribe. It should show what time the meeting started, and what time it officially finished. I’d like to see times when issues were discussed, and a scribe could do this quite effectively. It would also show us if something was discussed that *wasn’t* noted in the minutes.
I would also like Board members to document actions they have taken on behalf of the WMF outside of meetings. Besides being a statutory requirement, it’s a good idea and helps with transparency.
Of course, the best solution would be Pine’s proposal of recording meetings and releasing these to the general public.
Chris
Seems a good guide:
https://www.governanceinstitute.com.au/media/428696/gov-inst_bestpracticemin...
R/R
2016-03-02 22:56 GMT-08:00 Chris Sherlock chris.sherlock79@gmail.com:
Let’s have the Board meetings be recorded. If they cannot be recorded, then I’d like the WMF to improve their meeting minutes.
Jimmy made a couple of suggestions earlier [1], including to publish all presentations given to the Board and to have a trusted community observer.
To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes publication, what types of information is captured in minutes, and so on. [2]
When it comes to presentations, the manual primarily refers to exceptions such as Legal presentations and documents "intended for presentation".
I would recommend clarifying the standards under which such decisions are made, perhaps in the manual itself, and indeed publishing presentations going forward. For instance, I think one can make reasonable arguments either way when it comes to revenue related presentations, but there should be a general approach.
Personally I would recommend transparency for those, as well, with confidential business income and similar data being omitted if necessary. "Competitive analysis" and the like is generally not the kind of thing that WMF is good at doing secretly, and indeed many of its risk analyses have been made public. Certainly all strategy presentations should be public.
As for minutes, again, it seems to me a matter of first clarifying, possibly in the Board manual, what level of detail is appropriate. It seems to me that the Board is adhering to a relatively risk-averse, conservative approach right now, whereas WMF staff (which make many risky and potentially sensitive decisions on a day-to-day basis) capture significantly more individual-level detail in quarterly review minutes without apparent ill effect. I understand the concern about "speaking freely", but I personally think this is overstated in many cases.
The Board, being a governance body, _will_ often talk about sensitive issues that cannot be captured in detail, such as personnel, management and legal matters. But that doesn't mean it cannot adhere to a greater level of detail in capturing strategy conversations, for example.
Erik
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082719.html [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook
2016-03-02 23:22 GMT-08:00 Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com:
Jimmy made a couple of suggestions earlier [1], including to publish all presentations given to the Board and to have a trusted community observer.
"Nearly all", to paraphrase accurately, and on re-reading the email I'm not sure I understand the "observer" idea ("a program of invited board observers from people who are well known and well trusted by the community"). Personally, I do find it intriguing but I'm not sure it would add much value transparency-wise, unless these observers play some kind of role in the discussion of what gets published, i.e. they effectively act as advocates for transparency.
When it comes to presentations, the manual primarily refers to exceptions such as Legal presentations and documents "intended for presentation".
That should read: "intended for publication".
Erik (and now I'm really over my quota)
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes publication, what types of information is captured in minutes, and so on. [2] [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook
I'm going to quote the current state of the bit that has always worried me about minutes:
- The Secretary takes minutes of the meeting. - No more than three weeks after the meeting, the Secretary posts draft minutes and a draft resolution to approve the minutes on the Board wiki; Board members must amend or vote to approve the minutes within 10 days. - No more than five weeks after the meeting, the Secretary posts the approved public minutes and any presentations intended for publication, to wikimediaannounce-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l. Public minutes and the resolutions approving them are available on the WMF wiki at meetings https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings and resolutions https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions. The Secretary also certifies a hard copy of the minutes and any referenced documents, including any nonpublic portions of the minutes and retains them in Board books.
This three to five week delay is very out of step with the best practices recommended in the rest of the organization.
Please push "send" at the end of the meeting and amend them later with notes if clarification is required...
The board meetings already have a privacy switch, the executive session (kick out any visitors and leave a big empty spot in the public notes), for things that cannot be public.
-- brion
On 3 Mar 2016, at 6:22 PM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes publication, what types of information is captured in minutes, and so on. [2]
[snipping material]
As for minutes, again, it seems to me a matter of first clarifying, possibly in the Board manual, what level of detail is appropriate. It seems to me that the Board is adhering to a relatively risk-averse, conservative approach right now, whereas WMF staff (which make many risky and potentially sensitive decisions on a day-to-day basis) capture significantly more individual-level detail in quarterly review minutes without apparent ill effect. I understand the concern about "speaking freely", but I personally think this is overstated in many cases.
I think the issue, aside from the extreme tardiness of the meeting minutes (really, the Board needs 3 weeks to publish the minutes and apparently has been late even then?!?) is that the level of details is ridiculous. The meeting minutes for the last Board meeting look like they were written on the back of an envelope, then typed into the wiki. And it’s missing that there was any discussion at all about the removal of one of the Board members, or that they asked James to leave the meeting immediately after the vote.
I think the Board’s Secretary needs to step in to answer this question. Why is there missing actions in the minutes? Why aren’t the minutes complete? The Secretary is responsible for minutes, so let’s hear from him why the minutes aren’t up to date.
Would someone please ask Geoff Brigham to come onto the list to explain this please? And also explain why it takes so long to prepare these minutes and have them signed off?
Chris
A few reflections on this subject:
1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers / presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes. These give a lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that makes people concerned about what is actually going on. (I'd echo Eric's comment about the level of depth that WMF staff share in quarterly reviews and so on!)
2) Audio or video recording meetings is, in my view, a very bad idea. Wikimedia UK tried this for a while and then abandoned it. Board members start worrying about how their words are going to be perceived by people outside the meeting rather than the people in the meeting. In an environment where someone will start a critical email thread about every single misphrasing or ambiguity, I really worry this would cripple the Board's ability to have a conversation about any issue.
3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning writing up minutes and then circulate a draft .... which then someone wants to amend ... .you get the picture. :)
Regards,
Chris
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
- 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning writing up minutes and then circulate a draft .... which then someone wants to amend ... .you get the picture. :)
Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting by the designated note taker(s)?
-- brion
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting by the designated note taker(s)?
Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve as minutes?
I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or reviewed to make sure that happens faster?
-- brion
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On 3 March 2016 at 07:53, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the
meeting
by the designated note taker(s)?
Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve as minutes?
I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or reviewed to make sure that happens faster?
I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part of the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the minutes that relate to my presentation/participation/comments. I've discovered that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed or are misinterpreted or key facts may be misreported or misrepresented. Even the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the minute-taker. It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or the level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is almost never completely right. (That's why we call them drafts...)
For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board communications needs to deal with.
I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board communications needs to deal with.
I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized without the need to organize yet another elections.
To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but they would mostly be an observer.
dj
On 3 March 2016 at 09:22, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a
large
part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that
board
communications needs to deal with.
I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their
meeting
minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized without the need to organize yet another elections.
To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but they would mostly be an observer.
"Responsible for reviewing the minutes". This is a lovely ideal. Can we now be realistic? What do we really expect that "observer" to do? Will they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval authority (i.e., do they get to vote on the acceptance of the minutes)? I'm not opposed to community members observing board meetings - I suspect many people will find them to be unexpectedly boring, with less substantive discussion than many would expect - but the objective should be a lot more clear. What about if they genuinely believe that the minutes (which most of us would recognize as having been written using a template) don't reflect or emphasize what the observer thinks were the key issues? Do they get to put forward publicly their own version of what happened or what they observed? Are they going to be permitted to observe the "executive session", where even the WMF staff are out of the room? I am fine with the general concept, but I don't think either the board or the community has really thought through the entire process. We should get it pretty much nailed down before it is implemented.
Minute-taking is a skill - just as is writing a featured article or creating a featured image. Those who think it's an easy task that should be able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
"Responsible for reviewing the minutes". This is a lovely ideal. Can we now be realistic? What do we really expect that "observer" to do? Will they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval authority (i.e., do they get to vote on the acceptance of the minutes)? I'm not opposed to community members observing board meetings - I suspect many people will find them to be unexpectedly boring, with less substantive discussion than many would expect - but the objective should be a lot more clear. What about if they genuinely believe that the minutes (which most of us would recognize as having been written using a template) don't reflect or emphasize what the observer thinks were the key issues? Do they get to put forward publicly their own version of what happened or what they observed? Are they going to be permitted to observe the "executive session", where even the WMF staff are out of the room? I am fine with the general concept, but I don't think either the board or the community has really thought through the entire process. We should get it pretty much nailed down before it is implemented.
Minute-taking is a skill - just as is writing a featured article or creating a featured image. Those who think it's an easy task that should be able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
hi Anne,
I appreciate your criticism, it definitely helps to shoot down ideas early, before they can mature ;) What I'm getting at is trying to find a sensible form of addressing the community's concerns without making the whole Board meetings public (I don't think it is impossible, I basically think that it would entirely change the dynamics of the meetings - there would be an incentive for the community-elected members to speak up to gain political support, for example; this idea calls for just as much shredding apart as the "observer" one).
The observer I have in mind would not be responsible for taking the minutes (as you've pointed out, it is a skill), but reviewing them. Anyhow, it is just an ad-hoc idea that I think could be refined, if it was perceived as addressing the problem of the Board meetings being overly cryptic and secretive for the general public.
dj
On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Those who think it's an easy task that should be
able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
-- brion
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Those who think it's an easy task that should be
able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no
real
experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is
important
that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not
be
the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
-- brion
Well, there's the fact that board minutes are actually legal documents; they are required by law, they need to contain certain information, and they are binding on the organization. I do not believe you will find any major international non-profit organization (whether or not they've got strong community links, support open and free knowledge, or are just ordinary charities) that would publish drafts of their legal documents. Getting approved versions out more promptly, and in particular including more information and context for the decisions and discussion, is probably a better first objective; this should be achievable because we can find good examples from other organizations.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, but there are plenty of people who will point to the public draft and insist that's the "real" information and that any subsequent modifications were made for political reasons rather than to reflect correct information. I think it's fair to say that, as of this precise moment, there's not a huge assumption of good faith directed at the board by at least some sectors of the broad community. Whether or not it is deserved, I think it reasonable to say that the Board has some work in regaining the trust of the community. I'd encourage them to start with small steps that are easily repeated and documented and don't need a lot of exceptions, so that they will be building a more solid foundation. Making major changes that, after a few months, turn out to be unsustainable, will be more harmful than helpful.
Risker/Anne
*nod* very good points; it may be worth thinking about whether "minutes" and "communicating a clear reference of what's going on" should be distinct issues treated separately. If we've been conflating them in out discussion that might be leading some of us down wrong paths in potential solutions.
Definitely agree on not making major changes too fast. Thoughtful, deliberate changes only!
-- brion On Mar 3, 2016 8:03 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Those who think it's an easy task that should be
able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no
real
experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is
important
that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are
9
board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct
and
approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not
be
the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it
rather
than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
-- brion
Well, there's the fact that board minutes are actually legal documents; they are required by law, they need to contain certain information, and they are binding on the organization. I do not believe you will find any major international non-profit organization (whether or not they've got strong community links, support open and free knowledge, or are just ordinary charities) that would publish drafts of their legal documents. Getting approved versions out more promptly, and in particular including more information and context for the decisions and discussion, is probably a better first objective; this should be achievable because we can find good examples from other organizations.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, but there are plenty of people who will point to the public draft and insist that's the "real" information and that any subsequent modifications were made for political reasons rather than to reflect correct information. I think it's fair to say that, as of this precise moment, there's not a huge assumption of good faith directed at the board by at least some sectors of the broad community. Whether or not it is deserved, I think it reasonable to say that the Board has some work in regaining the trust of the community. I'd encourage them to start with small steps that are easily repeated and documented and don't need a lot of exceptions, so that they will be building a more solid foundation. Making major changes that, after a few months, turn out to be unsustainable, will be more harmful than helpful.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't seen addressed:
Are there notes kept during executive sessions?
From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that
doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories or resolve disputes, seems important.
For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording meetings, *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more widely distributed.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't seen addressed:
Are there notes kept during executive sessions?
Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept separate by the secretary and not published.
-- Brion
From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories
or
resolve disputes, seems important.
For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording
meetings,
*independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more widely distributed.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The "minutes" released to the public are ridiculously scant. I tried to find out more last year about the board's removing the identification requirement from those the WMF grants access to the non-public information of contributors, but ran into dead-ends. The only thing I could decipher really is that boardmember Samuel Klein raised the motion to remove the requirement.
Trillium Corsage
03.03.2016, 16:22, "Brion Vibber" <email clipped>:
On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't seen addressed:
Are there notes kept during executive sessions?
Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept separate by the secretary and not published.
-- Brion
From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories
or
resolve disputes, seems important.
For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording
meetings,
*independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more widely distributed.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
<text clipped for brevity>
Speaking from my non-Wikimedia experiences with nonprofit boards, I think Risker makes some good points.
Even a very good notetaker is going to make mistakes. There are things said they accidentally didn’t hear, they misunderstood what someone was saying, or simply summarized a point using wording that doesn’t sound quite right to the person who said it. Note taking is a different skill from dictating ever word, and when a non-messenger is summarizing for messengers, things tend to need edits before they are considered “final”. However, that said, I do agree that our Board should be striving to do this faster than has been done recently.
Regarding recording meetings, I have seen this tried before, and do not believe it is what we are really looking for. In reality, as Risker noted, it changes the behavior of participants - and usually not in an effective way. A lot more time is spent in meetings pondering the “right” way to say something before you say it. When it’s not being recorded, people are more inclined to offer early and incomplete thoughts. Perhaps it is good for people to pick their words more carefully first, but in my experience, usually makes the meetings less effective, and just results in a lot more “behind the scenes” dealmaking and conversations. I believe these types of meetings are most effective when they are a safe space to talk through complex problems. Additionally, I feel I should note there is a very real difference between Wikimedia Foundation and the governments we are sometimes compared to. WMF does not enjoy the same legal protections as governments do, and our movement’s or Foundation’s public meeting documentation are not free from threats of defamation/libel lawsuit threats (which Govt. meetings are free from). The end result for organizations I have seen try this is that a lot less gets said in meetings out of fear of being sued. The only way to really offset that would be to create a large legal fund to prepare, but even then, who wants to the Board member that has dipped into the legal fund half a dozen times in their terms? Also, is a legal fund defending potentially offensive things said during Board meetings the best use of our donors’ dollars?
I absolutely 100% agree that work needs to be done to help both the organization and our Board rebuild trust, and some of that needs to be either putting information out in better ways, and making sure info IS out there. I also understand and have seen this particular set of ideas come up as solutions for similar problems elsewhere. However, I do feel I should point out that like some ideas that sounded good and logical on paper, when it was tried out, the results were disappointing. It is entirely possible we’ll be the exception, but I’m not personally very confident in that. As such, I think we should ponder ways to make the notes posting process better, and ways that the Board can improve communication outside of their official meetings. Plus, let’s be honest, the meetings are not where everything is happening anyway. I want to know about the whole picture, not just that part of it.
-greg (User:Varnent)
On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Those who think it's an easy task that should be
able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
-- brion
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized without the need to organize yet another elections.
To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but they would mostly be an observer.
I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community, with the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different person every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as much as possible. I’d also like for it to be open to folks from “the media” of our community, such as The Signpost.
-Andrew
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community, with the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different person every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as much as possible. I’d also like for it to be open to folks from “the media” of our community, such as The Signpost.
the reason why I think it would be good to rotate this person is that it would allow to assure not getting into the Board's logic too much. If the Board ever slides into group-think, this would be a safety valve.
dj
What do we want? We want to understand what board members think about major issues, we want some sense of the direction of the organization as driven by the board, we want to be able to see and verify that issues important to stakeholders throughout the movement are being considered and addressed by the board. Videotaping or audio recording or broadcasting all board meetings may impede the necessary work of the board, and lots of reasons have been offered to support this objection.
So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings? The WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all the time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear staff work through issues and offer feedback. Can't we extend that template to the board, and ask the board to create some opportunities to engage either with the public or at least in public?
On 2016-03-03 18:17, Nathan wrote:
So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings? The WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all the time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear staff work through issues and offer feedback. Can't we extend that template to the board, and ask the board to create some opportunities to engage either with the public or at least in public?
We can just ask them to hold office hours, as everybody in WMF does.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part
of
the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the
minutes
that relate to my presentation/participation/comments. I've discovered that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed
or
are misinterpreted or key facts may be misreported or misrepresented.
Even
the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the minute-taker. It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or
the
level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is
almost
never completely right. (That's why we call them drafts...)
This makes me think "release early, release often" -- quick publishing of draft notes so they can be reviewed and questions asked for clarification.
And/or lean further on recording to ensure that incorrect or missing notes can be corrected by double checking what was actually said.
For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that
board
communications needs to deal with.
This is a legitimate concern deserving more thought at all levels of our movement.
I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their
meeting
minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
Risker/Anne
-- brion
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:56 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting by the designated note taker(s)?
-- brion
And why is the entire board writing up the minutes?
In fact, the job of a scribe is to be able to take down accurate notes during the meeting. Normally, they write up the meeting minutes and send them to everyone, which is part of the process in the Board's manual. If someone disputed the accuracy they say so and it gets resolved.
That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their position on the Board and they need to take them seriously.
Chris
That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their position on the Board and they need to take them seriously.
Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
Sent from my iPhone On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
Nope.
Chris
Sent from my iPhone On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
Nope.
If you ever do, I think you will end up with a very different perspective on the commitment of time and emotional energy WMF board members make, and what it's reasonable to expect of them.
Chris
On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:36 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
Nope.
If you ever do, I think you will end up with a very different perspective on the commitment of time and emotional energy WMF board members make, and what it's reasonable to expect of them.
Chris
Not really. My mother was involved in a non-profit. She also looked after two children, worked full time and did a lot of housework (I fell kind of bad I didn't help enough, but I was young and my dad worked sone odd hours).
She managed to get the meeting minutes distributed in about a week. She treated it very seriously and yes, sometimes they were late by a week.
Interestingly, I checked out GLAM's minutes. They are published very quickly and are quite detailed. The Discovery Team's minutes are very detailed and were published very rapidly.
The WMF's minutes were published on the Wiki on the 14th January, but it was held on the 7-8 November. And they don't mention the board action to remove James, so they don't appear to be complete. And some points don't appear to be particularly detailed.
Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris?
Chris
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Chris Sherlock chris.sherlock79@gmail.com wrote:
Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris?
Chris
Chris Keating is on the board of the WMUK.
In any case, it seems like there are many deliberative or legislative bodies that see themselves as responsible to the public which manage to videotape meetings. More than a few even broadcast them live on public television. There is always the opportunity to go into a non-public session for the discussion of confidential information. While this "speak to the camera" concern (which is the same reason why U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments are not videotaped) is valid... I think the fear is overblown. A potential alternative is to have a transcript of the meetings created and published, which might alleviate some anxiety for the camera shy.
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Sherlock chris.sherlock79@gmail.com wrote:
That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their position on the Board and they need to take them seriously.
I would ask that we tone down some of the personal vitriol... We've got broken *processes* here, which are being followed.
In the common parlance: "don't hate the player, hate the game."
-- brion
Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:37 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Sherlock chris.sherlock79@gmail.com wrote:
That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their position on the Board and they need to take them seriously.
I would ask that we tone down some of the personal vitriol... We've got broken *processes* here, which are being followed.
In the common parlance: "don't hate the player, hate the game."
-- brion
I apologise if I've overstepped the mark.
Chris
On 3 March 2016 at 11:51, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
A few reflections on this subject:
- I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers /
presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes. These give a lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that makes people concerned about what is actually going on. (I'd echo Eric's comment about the level of depth that WMF staff share in quarterly reviews and so on!)
I think this may have got written out of order :-) But, yes, I agree that publishing board papers can be very useful.
- Audio or video recording meetings is, in my view, a very bad idea.
Wikimedia UK tried this for a while and then abandoned it. Board members start worrying about how their words are going to be perceived by people outside the meeting rather than the people in the meeting. In an environment where someone will start a critical email thread about every single misphrasing or ambiguity, I really worry this would cripple the Board's ability to have a conversation about any issue.
Also agree. Detailed minutes strike a good balance here.
- 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning writing up minutes and then circulate a draft .... which then someone wants to amend ... .you get the picture. :)
I think this is entirely reasonable for minutes made by and for an entirely volunteer group. But WMF is a large organisation, employing many staff. It coordinates and supports the board meetings, presumably at some cost. Surely it could arrange to provide a confidential note-taker whose *job* it is to take those minutes, put them into a fit state the following day, and circulate them shortly afterwards? It might still take a little while to get them approved and published, but we'd still be a step up on where we are now.
A few reflections on this subject:
(snip)
I forgot one. Herewith:
4) Minutes while helpful aren't a substitute for proactive communication. Having just written about this subject at length* I won't go into it again. But when the WMF Board simply makes a controversial decision and putting out a statement, it usually isn't communicating optimally. I'd usually put communicating with stakeholders proactively, higher on the priority list than ensuring prompt production of minutes.
(I am still scratching my head about how WMF Board might have acted on this better after the November Board and staff meeting, given the many challenges of that situation. But it does look like another case where a statement was written that didn't end up communicating what the Board were hoping it would communicate.)
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Why_do_They_always_do_It_wrong
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and decided elsewhere.
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the WMF in being transparent?
Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings could do with a little more detail. If brevity is wit, then the existing minutes are positively Wildean.
Cheers, Craig
On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen by waving a wand and have it be so.
I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with universal agreement except to redact large parts. A lot of it involved "I did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context". Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without being content-free.
And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the shadows. If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative bodies ;-)
So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days after any meeting. This would mean publishing: the items brought into the meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
Ariel
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and decided elsewhere.
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the WMF in being transparent?
Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings could do with a little more detail. If brevity is wit, then the existing minutes are positively Wildean.
Cheers, Craig
On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings (the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to discuss...
Lodewijk
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen by waving a wand and have it be so.
I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with universal agreement except to redact large parts. A lot of it involved "I did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context". Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without being content-free.
And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the shadows. If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative bodies ;-)
So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days after any meeting. This would mean publishing: the items brought into the meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
Ariel
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
board
meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and decided elsewhere.
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
wheeling
a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
Board
of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the WMF in being transparent?
Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings could do with a little more detail. If brevity is wit, then the existing minutes are positively Wildean.
Cheers, Craig
On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
They were doing this regularly until January: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_meetings/2016-01-... and see: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_meetings I suspect this dropped a bit in priority since then, for obvious reasons, but hopefully only temporarily.
Thanks, Mike
On 5 Mar 2016, at 17:11, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings (the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to discuss...
Lodewijk
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen by waving a wand and have it be so.
I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with universal agreement except to redact large parts. A lot of it involved "I did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context". Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without being content-free.
And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the shadows. If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative bodies ;-)
So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days after any meeting. This would mean publishing: the items brought into the meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
Ariel
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
board
meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and decided elsewhere.
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
wheeling
a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
Board
of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the WMF in being transparent?
Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings could do with a little more detail. If brevity is wit, then the existing minutes are positively Wildean.
Cheers, Craig
On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ariel Glenn writes:
I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently;
I
suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it
happen
Minutes review doesn't need to be prolonged; the longer you wait the less participants remember. Online board votes can be closed with a week of discussion and four days to vote: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Board_deliberations
If there is a dedicated scribe, rough minutes can be taken in a shared doc, available during the meeting. The fastest board I've been on spent 5 minutes at the end reviewing the draft minutes + any decisions made, and shared the results right away. This also helped reinforce any next steps committed to.
If on the other hand draft minutes aren't available right away, you have to whip people to look & respond (it helps for the whip to be a member of the group, not the scribe, who might not want to press the point), and it's easy for other events to intervene and lead to unexpected delays (since any event can seem more urgent or important than this routine task).
SJ
On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the WMF in being transparent?
One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call "Kremlinology".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology
The cycle looks like this: - the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to interpret indirect clues - this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and sometimes led by people with their own private agenda - board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't done, or believing things they don't believe - leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions - leading to the board not sharing enough
I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.
Rather than point out negative examples, I do want to point out a positive example, because I think that (see the sensitivity that the hostility generates) some are likely to see what I'm about to say as "Jimbo doesn't want people to be critical or to ask hard questions", which would leave me with the emotion "what's the point of trying to talk to them?" Because that isn't what I'm saying at all.
Today I responded to a series of criticisms of the board by Mzmcbride. His criticisms are largely wrong, I think. But they weren't offered in a spirit of conspiracy mongering, maliciousness, etc. One central point that he's making is one that I think actually stands, although he would be more persuasive if he stuck to that rather than throwing in some extras: it would be better if, at all times, the WMF and the Board had solid succession planning in case of the loss of a key executive.
That's absolutely true. That's is one of the things that led to this whole situation - I have a lot more to say about that, but it'll have to wait until I finish writing up a report for public consumption about the time I spent in California talking to staff.
So this is a strong lesson learned and for me personally a top priority going forward - making sure that the permanent ED search is conducted professionally and with vigor, and making sure that as quickly as possible we have strong hires in all the vacant C-level positions and proper succession planning as a routine matter of organizational governance and stability.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama, there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.
You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.
Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama, there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.
You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.
Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to James and cc-ed to Pete.
James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
Sarah
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to James and cc-ed to Pete.
James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
Sarah
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest priority. It has gone on too long. If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part was redacted.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to James and cc-ed to Pete.
James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
Sarah
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest priority. It has gone on too long. If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part was redacted.
As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here. The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated here.[2]
There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication in this movement for long enough.
Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets. We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in early January,[3]
Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good Wikimedian" should assume the best.
Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be published were the board and/or ED.
To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative. Can we please put an end to it?
If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has gone on long enough.
Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=7... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr... [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_off...
On 16 March 2016 at 12:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote: ...
If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has gone on long enough.
...
There is no excuse for a $100m/year Foundation to endorse a trustee who behaves so badly in public, and even worse in private. Nonsense puffery about "free speech", does not suddenly make it acceptable for Jimmy to gratuitously drop the f-bomb when brutally slagging off a past board member in writing. This, hand-in-hand with political distortions and what now appears a long history of blatant "untruths", makes Jimmy Wales completely inappropriate to remain a WMF trustee for the next 3 months, let alone the next 3 years.
Jimmy has a great career as a pundit, and many similar media celebrities seem to be able to grow their profile and fees by behaving badly and trashing people they have chosen to dislike. Good luck to him, but let's stop promoting the myth that he in any way officially speaks for the Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia volunteers or (in his self-appointed role) Wikimedia employees.
P.S. Does anyone who reads this list know /exactly/ when and where will we see the results of Jimmy Wales' interviews/workshops with WMF employees, after his recent trip to S.F. acting as the default organ of the WMF board of trustees; or should this now be forgotten like it never happened?
Fae
Hoi, May I ask on what basis this should be done. Is it not equally relevant to ask yourself how isolated you are in your position? Is this what we need, will it do us any good or is it just that you feel that this is what "we" need ?
It is fine for you to spout what you do. However, I am very much disgusted with this constant sniping. It is not about what we do and it makes things worse. I can totally echo you when I say that it has gone long enough. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 March 2016 at 13:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to James and cc-ed to Pete.
James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
Sarah
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest priority. It has gone on too long. If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part was redacted.
As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here. The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated here.[2]
There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication in this movement for long enough.
Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets. We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in early January,[3]
Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good Wikimedian" should assume the best.
Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be published were the board and/or ED.
To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative. Can we please put an end to it?
If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has gone on long enough.
Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html [2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=7... [3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr... [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_off... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.
I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.
Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom?
Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.
Trillium Corsage
16.03.2016, 12:17, "Andreas Kolbe" <email clipped>:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <email clipped> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <email clipped> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <email clipped> > wrote: >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to >> release an email? > > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1] > > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to > James and cc-ed to Pete. > > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2] > > Sarah > > [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html > [2] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest priority. It has gone on too long. If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part was redacted.
As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here. The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated here.[2]
There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication in this movement for long enough.
On 15 April 2016 at 17:42, Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com wrote:
Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.
I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.
Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom?
Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.
Trillium Corsage
I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it. It doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the identity of the mover is more process than substance.
The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be published. I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency, it's prurience.
Risker/Anne
Risker, your suggestion that by asking for board minutes I was really calling (and "pruriently" so!) for public release of Lila's performance appraisals is so bizarre and ridiculous that I don't know how to defend it except by advising anyone confused by you to actually read my prior email.
Similarly, your assertion that "Patricio's email and public posting stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it" equates to official board minutes, and no more is needed, leaves me a bit lost for words. What I asked for is a document like the dozens posted here (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings), and as I've written here before those things are so sparse of detail to barely qualify as "minutes" but they *do* typically say who raised a motion, who seconded it, and the result. Which is all I asked for.
Now, what you also did is place the resignation ball firmly in Lila's court "Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it." This is at odds with the common perception that the board issued the call for her resignation, and she had little choice as a professional but to comply. Is that not what you thought? Or you thought the resignation came spontaneously from Lila? At least GorillaWarfare didn't see it that way. She said " It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own."
Anyhow, it's a simple request for transparency. The board should publish the minutes or let it be known otherwise which trustee initiated (and which seconded) (and which opposed if any) the call for the ED's resignation.
Trillium Corsage
16.04.2016, 02:23, "Risker" <email clipped>:
I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it. It doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the identity of the mover is more process than substance.
The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be published. I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency, it's prurience.
Risker/Anne
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com wrote:
Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
Wait -- seriously??
I missed this piece until today. But if this is true, it is huge.
Lila's departure was publicly communicated as a resignation -- not as a "decision [by the board] to dismiss."
Jimmy Wales has been quite vocal about wanting to defer to the board on what should and should not be communicated.
In this instance, did he seriously acknowledge a vote that was kept private?
So...Jimmy Wales can share confidential information when it seems personally convenient to him, but can withhold it when it seems personally convenient to him -- is that the standard?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those who are just joining us:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported her "resignation" is left to the reader.
Cheers, Craig
On 26 April 2016 at 10:49, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage <trillium2014@yandex.com
wrote:
Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
Wait -- seriously??
I missed this piece until today. But if this is true, it is huge.
Lila's departure was publicly communicated as a resignation -- not as a "decision [by the board] to dismiss."
Jimmy Wales has been quite vocal about wanting to defer to the board on what should and should not be communicated.
In this instance, did he seriously acknowledge a vote that was kept private?
So...Jimmy Wales can share confidential information when it seems personally convenient to him, but can withhold it when it seems personally convenient to him -- is that the standard?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 26 Apr 2016 09:25, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those who are just joining us:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported her "resignation" is left to the reader.
My reading of that is Jimmy supported her "departure" with sadness. i.e. he avoids indicating how the departure occurred; neither dismissal nor resignation.
No doubt that type of phrasing is in the HR handbook for situations like this, to avoid pain or legal disputes after the fact.
Thank you Craig for nipping this one in the bud.
-- John
26.04.2016, 03:25, "John Mark Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com:
My reading of that is Jimmy supported her "departure" with sadness. i.e. he avoids indicating how the departure occurred; neither dismissal nor resignation.
No doubt that type of phrasing is in the HR handbook for situations like this, to avoid pain or legal disputes after the fact.
Thank you Craig for nipping this one in the bud.
Craig gave the right link. Here's the exact exchange.
Gorillawarfare: I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial, or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.
Jimbo Wales: I supported it with sadness. The whole thing is a sad train wreck.
Yeah, it's accurate no-one says the word "dismissal." That was my interpretation of it based on recollection, I wasn't trying to introduce a new concept to anything.
I don't understand why we're walking on eggshells really. Jimbo "supported her departure with sadness." It seems pretty clear he's not referring to getting misty-eyed over cake at Lila's farewell party. He did something. He's not quarreling with Gorillawarfare's take that "she did not up and resign on her own."
As just an observer from afar, I liked Lila and thought she was doing a good job. She hired a child-protection person for one thing. However I've heard about the employee poll that said she really was failing to get support from the ranks, and I'm in no position to second-guess that. And then a couple months ago, she's getting bashed right and left on this very list, with a person going so far as to say she should "choke on shame" and "just go away." With no objection from the list moderators.Jimbo is going bonkers on James Heilman regarding his characterization of "Knowledge Engine." And of course Lila was a proponent of that. All the same, her resignation came quickly and as a surprise to me.
If the board had no discussion on her future and did NOT ask for or otherwise overtly encourage her resignation, it would be easy enough for any one of them to say that. If they on the other hand actually did meet or tele-conference and vote on it, that's the meeting I wanted minutes for. And obviously (thank Risker!) this doesn't mean I want to gawk at gossipy details of trustees criticizing her, I just would like to know which trustees gave the thumbs down, which didn't, and which introduced the motion. Is this secret HR stuff that would embarrass Lila? It doesn't seem that way to me. There've been a dozen news stories on her leaving, and none have reported it was on wonderful terms all around. So what's the big deal?
Publish the minutes or say "there was no meeting, there are no minutes."
Trillium Corsage
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?
Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking up on this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in layman's terms?
Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of editors and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if it is, on editors and readers?
Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about?
Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the anonymous administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the non-public information of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators" and so forth?
Here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement&actio....
Trillium Corsage
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com wrote:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused about why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is, essentially, a legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for as long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was asked to help put it up for them).
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me. Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and the privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department (though everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises the org as a whole made).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly qualified (or experienced) in law.
Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies and their usage on Wikimedia.
1. Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say "en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
2. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the cookie policy include (i) Javascript code, or (ii) Flash objects
3. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
4. Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously' related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
Toby
[ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account). Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
[ref#2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder&action...
On 5/2/16, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com wrote:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused about why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is, essentially, a legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for as long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was asked to help put it up for them).
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me. Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and the privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department (though everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises the org as a whole made).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the technical/legal overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely being classifiable as a technology.
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann toby.dollmann@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly qualified (or experienced) in law.
Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies and their usage on Wikimedia.
- Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include (i) Javascript code, or (ii) Flash objects
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
- Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously' related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
Toby
[ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account). Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
[ref#2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder&action...
On 5/2/16, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
trillium2014@yandex.com javascript:;>
wrote:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and
IT
thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused
about
why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is, essentially,
a
legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for
as
long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was
asked
to help put it up for them).
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me. Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and
the
privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department
(though
everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises the org as a whole made).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Trillium,
These are great questions to ask, thank you for keeping the privacy conversation on track!
As a technical employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who would have been involved if we were planning significant changes to expand or limit tracking, I can confirm that nothing rotten is in the wings. In fact, the situation is better now than ever before (in my 4 years here). There are internal accountability reforms under way to help us make strong guarantees about our users' privacy. A brief investigation into assigning readers long-term unique identifiers--in lay person terms the gateway to dystopian tracking--opened and was immediately shut again.[1] Data retention (what user data we collect and for how long) policy work is being tightened up, and done in public.[2] In Fundraising, we've found a way to measure aggregate data about our banner delivery without collecting information which lets us correlate anything else about readers.[3]
While I feel good about what's happening now, it would be nice to have longer-term assurances that we won't go collectively nuts in the unforeseeable future. I'm not sure what that assurance might look like, though... Democratic stewardship of our shared resources? Anyway, please do keep a critical eye on cookies and their brethren, and if you find anything out of joint I'm sure there will be plenty of allies left within the Foundation to help set it right.
Regards, Adam Wight [[mw:User:Adamw]
[1] Sorry, there was an all-staff internal discussion but I don't think this was published. The idea at the time was to get our house in order and decide whether to start a public conversation about unique IDs. There turned out to be many strong critics of the plan and no real supporters as far I could tell, and the initiative was abandoned, to my knowledge. The motivation for the project was to get a better estimate of our unique visitor counts (a count of their devices, to be precise). We've settled on the less accurate "last visited" measurement instead, which is described here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/30/unique-devices-dataset/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lightening_banner_history.pdf
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the technical/legal overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely being classifiable as a technology.
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann toby.dollmann@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly qualified (or experienced) in law.
Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies and their usage on Wikimedia.
- Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include (i) Javascript code, or (ii) Flash objects
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
- Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously' related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
Toby
[ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account). Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
[ref#2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder&action...
On 5/2/16, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
trillium2014@yandex.com javascript:;>
wrote:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and
IT
thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused
about
why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is,
essentially,
a
legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public information or document retention policy or terms of use or other
policy
docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal
for
as
long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was
asked
to help put it up for them).
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me. Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not
necessarily
ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal
department
for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and
the
privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department
(though
everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises
the
org as a whole made).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Adam,
Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]), it will become an increasingly high priority to clearly communicate that in public fora. It really helps when we can understand what others are trying to do, and how it aligns with our own ambitions.
Good stuff. I think this discussion got off to a rough start, but you have gotten it back on track, and maybe to resolution.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Adam Wight awight@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Trillium,
These are great questions to ask, thank you for keeping the privacy conversation on track!
As a technical employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who would have been involved if we were planning significant changes to expand or limit tracking, I can confirm that nothing rotten is in the wings. In fact, the situation is better now than ever before (in my 4 years here). There are internal accountability reforms under way to help us make strong guarantees about our users' privacy. A brief investigation into assigning readers long-term unique identifiers--in lay person terms the gateway to dystopian tracking--opened and was immediately shut again.[1] Data retention (what user data we collect and for how long) policy work is being tightened up, and done in public.[2] In Fundraising, we've found a way to measure aggregate data about our banner delivery without collecting information which lets us correlate anything else about readers.[3]
While I feel good about what's happening now, it would be nice to have longer-term assurances that we won't go collectively nuts in the unforeseeable future. I'm not sure what that assurance might look like, though... Democratic stewardship of our shared resources? Anyway, please do keep a critical eye on cookies and their brethren, and if you find anything out of joint I'm sure there will be plenty of allies left within the Foundation to help set it right.
Regards, Adam Wight [[mw:User:Adamw]
[1] Sorry, there was an all-staff internal discussion but I don't think this was published. The idea at the time was to get our house in order and decide whether to start a public conversation about unique IDs. There turned out to be many strong critics of the plan and no real supporters as far I could tell, and the initiative was abandoned, to my knowledge. The motivation for the project was to get a better estimate of our unique visitor counts (a count of their devices, to be precise). We've settled on the less accurate "last visited" measurement instead, which is described here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/30/unique-devices-dataset/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lightening_banner_history.pdf
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the
technical/legal
overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely being classifiable as a technology.
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann toby.dollmann@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of
my
knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly qualified (or experienced) in law.
Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies and their usage on Wikimedia.
- Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include (i) Javascript code, or (ii) Flash objects
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
- Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously' related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
Toby
[ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account). Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
[ref#2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder&action...
On 5/2/16, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
trillium2014@yandex.com javascript:;>
wrote:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and
it
seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical
and
IT
thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused
about
why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is,
essentially,
a
legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different
but
similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public information or document retention policy or terms of use or other
policy
docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal
for
as
long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was
asked
to help put it up for them).
It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of
my
knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me. Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not
necessarily
ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has
laws
about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal
department
for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy
and
the
privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays
within
their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department
(though
everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises
the
org as a whole made).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Adam,
Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization
improving
in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]), it will become an increasingly high priority to clearly communicate that in public fora. It really helps when we can understand what others are trying to do, and how it aligns with our own ambitions.
Good stuff. I think this discussion got off to a rough start, but you have gotten it back on track, and maybe to resolution.
One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g. Analytics or Fundraising). The mentioned https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Cookie_statement is a good way to collect all information about cookies, but I've found myself looking for good ways to make small updates (e.g. "we were thinking about doing this thing and were going to ask the communities before we started working on it, but then we started working on something else instead, but here's the thing that didn't happen"), so there's less risk things don't get communicated just because there's no big announcement of new changes to make. I hope https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T132405 to find a better solution whenever I get a couple of days when I have nothing that needs my immediate attention, so that there's a good, natural way to make them.
For anyone who wants to keep track of what's happening with how the WMF looks at traffic over the last few months, a few links: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ComScore/Announcement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:ComScore/Announcement https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-March/005094.html http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/30/unique-devices-dataset/
(I also try to include changes in how we measure traffic in Tech News https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News, from which most of the stuff above have been linked.)
//Johan Jönsson --
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson jjonsson@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g. Analytics or Fundraising). The mentioned https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Cookie_statement is a good way to collect all information about cookies
It really isn't. A policy document with very limited edit rights would be a maintenance nightmare and never up to date. Indeed that document omits most of the cookies used on the sites. And it never claims to list them all - while that could be made more clear, the table is actually presented as a list of examples .
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely being classifiable as a technology.
There is one use of Flash in our tech stack: audio output for media playback on Internet Explorer when using our JavaScript Ogg playback compatibility library.
This is a small shim which does not use cookies or any other type of local storage, which is why it is not listed on a page about cookies.
Here's the source code of the Flash component; feel free to review it for security:
https://github.com/brion/audio-feeder/blob/master/src/dynamicaudio.as
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann toby.dollmann@gmail.com wrote:
- Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
Like every other site on the world wide web, MediaWiki uses cookies to maintain login state. If you disable cookies, login will not work and your edits will not be attributed to your account.
Editing "anonymously" without cookies works, but reveals your IP address in a permanent public way.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include (i) Javascript code, or
MediaWiki's ResourceLoader can and does cache JavaScript module code in localStorage. This code has no special privileges or abilities because of that; it just takes up a tiny bit of space on your disk.
(ii) Flash objects
No, no Flash code is stored in cookies or localStorage.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
No, they are just data until they are executed, at which point they are just code, same as code loaded straight from the server. That code can do nothing special that it could not already do.
-- brion
On Monday, 2 May 2016, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely being classifiable as a technology.
There is one use of Flash in our tech stack: audio output for media playback on Internet Explorer when using our JavaScript Ogg playback compatibility library.
I'm so sorry :(. 'Ogg' is onomatopoeic then ;)
This is a small shim which does not use cookies or any other type of local storage, which is why it is not listed on a page about cookies.
Here's the source code of the Flash component; feel free to review it for security:
https://github.com/brion/audio-feeder/blob/master/src/dynamicaudio.as
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollmann@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
- Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
Like every other site on the world wide web, MediaWiki uses cookies to maintain login state. If you disable cookies, login will not work and your edits will not be attributed to your account.
Editing "anonymously" without cookies works, but reveals your IP address in a permanent public way.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include (i) Javascript code, or
MediaWiki's ResourceLoader can and does cache JavaScript module code in localStorage. This code has no special privileges or abilities because of that; it just takes up a tiny bit of space on your disk.
(ii) Flash objects
No, no Flash code is stored in cookies or localStorage.
- Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
No, they are just data until they are executed, at which point they are just code, same as code loaded straight from the server. That code can do nothing special that it could not already do.
-- brion _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Honestly this is kind of a bewildering set of hypotheticals to me.
You worry wikimedia is gathering new data and maybe selling it to marketers and maybe releasing it to the community, or not, or some of them, or all of them, based on:
An edit titled 'fixed two errors in cookie names' which...well, fixed two errors in cookie names.[0] that's all the revision appears to contain.
Legal editing the cookie statement seems pretty usual to me, and the edit (self-evidently) had nothing to do with changes to what is gathered. It was copyediting.
There are a lot of things the Foundation does it could communicate better, but legal tends to do a pretty good job: this edit is really evidence of that since it's senior counsel taking time to make very very sure they are reporting to our users precisely what is going on. If the WMF were to start selling a reading list to Facebook, I'm pretty sure there'd be an announcement, and I'm absolutely certain the policy change would need to consist of a bit more than two typo corrections.
[0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement&type=...
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com wrote:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?
Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking up on this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in layman's terms?
Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of editors and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if it is, on editors and readers?
Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about?
Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the anonymous administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the non-public information of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators" and so forth?
Here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement&actio... .
Trillium Corsage
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Edits didn't affect the content of the policy actually. Also a cookie policy is essentially a legal stuff, I'd be surprised to *don't *see the legal team editing it.
As a "sockpuppet investigator" I never rely upon cookies, I prefer fingerprints and social security numbers.
Vito
2016-05-01 23:40 GMT+02:00 Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com:
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?
Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking up on this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in layman's terms?
Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of editors and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if it is, on editors and readers?
Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about?
Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the anonymous administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the non-public information of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators" and so forth?
Here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement&actio... .
Trillium Corsage
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage <trillium2014@yandex.com
wrote:
Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
Wait -- seriously??
No, it's a false quote. I don't know if Trillium falsified the quote or if he/she picked it up from a different source. Asked if he supported her departure, he wrote "I supported it with sadness. The whole thing is a sad train wreck."
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to James and cc-ed to Pete.
James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
Sarah
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest priority. It has gone on too long. If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part was redacted.
It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
Can anyone share a link to it?
Thanks, Fae
On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
Let me rephrase that for you:
Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested. Were you successful in getting clarity?
If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more tempted to interact.
Lodewijk
Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ faewik@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
Can anyone share a link to it?
Thanks, Fae
On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@wikia-inc.com javascript:;> wrote:
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
-- faewik@gmail.com javascript:; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales' behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.
Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as: "Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets. .... If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has gone on long enough."
Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass.
It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees.
Fae
On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Let me rephrase that for you:
Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested. Were you successful in getting clarity?
If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more tempted to interact.
Lodewijk
Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ faewik@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
Can anyone share a link to it?
Thanks, Fae
On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@wikia-inc.com javascript:;> wrote:
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to release an email?
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
-- faewik@gmail.com javascript:; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
It is good that you keep such track of the commitment. It would be nice if that were done in a more constructive fashion.
You will often find me on your side when asking for more transparency. I do think that doing this in a more constructive way will be much more effective in the long run.
Lodewijk
Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ faewik@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales' behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.
Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as: "Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets. .... If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has gone on long enough."
Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass.
It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees.
Fae
On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org javascript:;> wrote:
Let me rephrase that for you:
Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested. Were you successful in getting clarity?
If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more tempted to interact.
Lodewijk
Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ <faewik@gmail.com javascript:;> het
volgende
geschreven:
It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
Can anyone share a link to it?
Thanks, Fae
On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
javascript:;> wrote:
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <
jayvdb@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
> > Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to > release an email? >
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others
about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James.
[1]
-- faewik@gmail.com javascript:; javascript:; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
-- faewik@gmail.com javascript:; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On 3/22/16 6:18 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested. Were you successful in getting clarity?
Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to publish something that will then allow me to publish further. But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
After a chat with someone more familiar with Jimmy Wales' user talk page than myself (I don't regularly follow it, as Jimmy does not grant me free speech there), I think this may be the link,[1] but we agree it's impossible to tell for sure as it all seems too obscure and tangential; quote:"... I continue to make the case to the board that greater transparency is desirable with regard to the reasons for James' removal."
None of the discussion seems to be anything that reads as much more than hearsay with plausibly deniability, and we are left hanging on a promise of something eventually where all the other trustees, not Jimmy, must be at fault for dragging their feet and failing to be transparent about an email that Jimmy wrote to James, that nobody else could have any legal or ethical reason to think they had a right to veto publishing; considering it has already been suggested that anything that might give the board of trustees a legal problem could be redacted in a minimal fashion.
It's a shame that WMF trustees are not subject to the type of legal constraints which most European charities operate under, forcing the organization to release records given a subject access request within a limited time... unless they sadly have an unexpected "administrative error" and delete the important/embarrassing records they should have archived.
It's not quite reached a month since publication was first requested and agreed to by James to avoid any issue with respecting confidentiality,[2] so readers of this list may have unrealistic expectations that this will be clarified in a timely way.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=71... 2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
Fae
On 23 March 2016 at 23:32, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Hoi, You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes over as personal.
What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho. As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.
My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do equally well. They do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I second that Gerard
On 16-04-16 08:16, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes over as personal.
What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho. As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.
My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do equally well. They do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's selective quoting?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out, the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convincing before most other people would agree with you.
The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer about what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk but for me it failed.
The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is noone who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make a meaningful contribution. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's selective quoting?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out, the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convincing before most other people would agree with you.
The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer about what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk but for me it failed.
From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is noone who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make a meaningful contribution.
Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's selective quoting?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.
But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder and it takes energy away from those things that really matter. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
convincing
before most other people would agree with you.
The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
about
what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
but
for me it failed.
From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
noone
who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
make
a meaningful contribution.
Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
allegations
against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
discussion.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
quoted
can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
March
2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's selective quoting?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.
Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their own sanity :p
This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder and it takes energy away from those things that really matter. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <ironholds@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Hoi, So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he
is
an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
convincing
before most other people would agree with you.
The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
than
anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
about
what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
but
for me it failed.
From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
that
you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community.
He
is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
noone
who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
latest
crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
make
a meaningful contribution.
Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
allegations
against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
discussion.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
quoted
can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
March
2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
that
everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's selective quoting?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board
under
his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with
his
repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with
WMF
employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks
ago
that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit"
if
it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk javascript:;>
wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
> >> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is
relevant.
> > Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
This is getting ridiculous.
Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange (James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out, you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.
James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.
What are you?
You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.
Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this charade.
You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least, you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as "spokesperson for the community".
We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic squatter.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.
Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their own sanity :p
This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
hinder
and it takes energy away from those things that really matter. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <ironholds@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Hoi, So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
he
is
an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
intend
on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
convincing
before most other people would agree with you.
The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
than
anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
about
what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful
talk
but
for me it failed.
From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
that
you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our
community.
He
is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
noone
who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
latest
crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
make
a meaningful contribution.
Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd
had
with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
allegations
against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
discussion.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have
any
objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
quoted
can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09,
31
March
2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was
archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
that
everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by
Jimmy's
selective quoting?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com
wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy
to
account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board
under
his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with
his
repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with
WMF
employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to
act
for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks
ago
that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit"
if
it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk javascript:;>
wrote: >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <
jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote: >> >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is
relevant.
>> >> Diff, please. > > Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The Signpost has just published the October 2015 email exchange between James and Jimmy - the exchange that Jimmy wouldn't release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-24/Op-ed
Thank you Signpost.
Anthony Cole
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
This is getting ridiculous.
Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange (James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out, you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.
James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.
What are you?
You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.
Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this charade.
You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least, you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as "spokesperson for the community".
We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic squatter.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan
Bart
to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.
Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right,
remember
that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead
or
when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their own sanity :p
This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
hinder
and it takes energy away from those things that really matter. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <ironholds@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Hoi, So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine
comes
out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
he
is
an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
intend
on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
convincing
before most other people would agree with you.
The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
than
anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
about
what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful
talk
but
for me it failed.
From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
that
you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our
community.
He
is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there
is
noone
who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
latest
crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place
to
make
a meaningful contribution.
Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd
had
with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
allegations
against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
discussion.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have
any
objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts
you
quoted
can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09,
31
March
2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was
archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
that
everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by
Jimmy's
selective quoting?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com
wrote:
> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy
to
> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board
under
> his own steam? > > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with
his
> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected
community
> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press. > > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now. > > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews
with
WMF
> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to
act
> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks
ago
> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call
"bullshit"
if
> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with? > > Fae > > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote: > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk javascript:;>
> wrote: > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <
jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
> wrote: > >> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is
relevant.
> >> > >> Diff, please. > > > > Answer came there none... > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board for life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the movement.
James
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably the latest crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
make
a meaningful contribution. Thanks, GerardM
In particular?
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve that label?
Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When you consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects and there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and make a high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
What our movement needs is more recognition for what works. More room for experimentation helps. More trust in the good intentions of the people that make things work helps.We need less Wikipedia think and more result think. It is a travesty for instance that the great work in Wikisource is not recognised as a generator of traffic. That is what they do in India and it is why I as a non elected member of a committee have a deviant idea: in my strong opinion we need both more wikisources as a tool to generate content and a platform to bring that content to a world audience. I am thrilled that Wikidata will improve the functionality of red links in Wikipedia even though it is only a subset of what is possible. There will be a small conference on sources and quality and that is something I applaud.
I have found that consistently this noisy crowd clamoring for "democracy" is not really interested in results. It feels too much like a power game.that is being played.
Finally; Jimmy is effective. Removing him from the board will disable his ability to function. Think about it in terms of what we aim to achieve and forget all the self serving rhetoric about democracy. Democracy is secondary. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 April 2016 at 20:28, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board for life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the movement.
James
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably the latest crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
make
a meaningful contribution. Thanks, GerardM
In particular?
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, Jimmy is effective in his board role - unfortunately, well, have you seen the threads about his behaviour in that role? If you instead mean he is only valuable as an icon or media figure because of it you'll need a better argument than a statement as if the claim is fact.
Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic. And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for madness.
But thank you for making the good faith claim that anyone who disagrees with you on this is just making a power play. What was it you were saying about taking an approach that achieves turmoil, again? ;)
On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve that label?
Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When you consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects and there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and make a high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
What our movement needs is more recognition for what works. More room for experimentation helps. More trust in the good intentions of the people that make things work helps.We need less Wikipedia think and more result think. It is a travesty for instance that the great work in Wikisource is not recognised as a generator of traffic. That is what they do in India and it is why I as a non elected member of a committee have a deviant idea: in my strong opinion we need both more wikisources as a tool to generate content and a platform to bring that content to a world audience. I am thrilled that Wikidata will improve the functionality of red links in Wikipedia even though it is only a subset of what is possible. There will be a small conference on sources and quality and that is something I applaud.
I have found that consistently this noisy crowd clamoring for "democracy" is not really interested in results. It feels too much like a power game.that is being played.
Finally; Jimmy is effective. Removing him from the board will disable his ability to function. Think about it in terms of what we aim to achieve and forget all the self serving rhetoric about democracy. Democracy is secondary. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 April 2016 at 20:28, James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will
not
decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board
for
life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the movement.
James
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com
wrote:
On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably the latest crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
make
a meaningful contribution. Thanks, GerardM
In particular?
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic. And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for madness.
This "republic" vs "democracy" business is a fallacy I wish people would stop repeating as if it means something - it doesn't. No one anywhere on earth hears "democracy" and thinks "ancient Athenian direct democracy" is what is meant.
On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When
you
consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects
and
there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and
make a
high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
What people have demanded is transparency. Failing transparency they turn to democracy as the only way to rein in the non-transparent exercise of control and influence. The principle of affording the participants of a group or effort the power to select their leaders is one that transcends government and is meaningful in most contexts, including Wikimedia.
While I have said for years that Wikimedia is not a governance experiment, having an accountable leadership is not experimental. If you support transparency, and can see that folks asking for it have been given the silent treatment for months on end, then I fail to see why you argue against using the one lever of control that remains to demand that the desire for transparency be heard.
Andreas, et al
On 23 March, Jimmy stated:[1]
"Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to publish something that will then allow me to publish further. But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant."
We are now exactly one month down the track and there is still no response from Jimmy.
At this juncture the following need to be addressed:
1) Can the board confirm whether Jimmy has in fact made such enquiry? When? And with whom?
2) In the instance of enquiry by Jimmy being made, can that enquiry from Jimmy be published? Assuming of course that the enquiry itself doesn't contain "sensitive" information that needs to be withheld.
3) Can the board explain why one month after Jimmy says he is "still waiting" for direction that direction has not been forthcoming.
For the community to move forward these issues can NOT simply be allowed to fade into distant memory. This is moreso needed given the disgraceful email Jimmy sent to James and Pete Forsyth, and Jimmy's equally disgraceful "utter fucking bullshit" attack on James.
At this point any response which doesn't answer these questions satisfactorily needs to be taken as Jimmy and/or the Board hoping the issue will simply go away; in which case the whole lot of you should resign in order for real community healing to take place.
Warm regards,
Ruslan Takayev
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg23472.html
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations against James.[1]
James replied twice:
<quote>
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
<end of quote>
Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's selective quoting?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_s...
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
Fae
On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com
wrote:
But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call "Kremlinology".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology
The cycle looks like this:
- the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
interpret indirect clues
- this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
- board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
done, or believing things they don't believe
- leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
- leading to the board not sharing enough
I think the paranoia and hostility comes in good part from the number of times you say stuff – often very emphatically – that turns out not to be supported by the facts. (Examples: [1].) And when that happens, I don't see you fessing up and saying "sorry"; instead, you try to smear, undermine and intimidate those who point the contradictions out.
Along with that come empty promises – sops to Cerberus – like the one quoted here:[2]
Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
Nothing happened after you said that, as is so often the case. The grant agreement was only published a month later, within hours of my calling John Bracken at the Knight Foundation, on behalf of The Signpost, who confirmed that the Knight Foundation welcomed transparency and had no objection whatsoever to the grant agreement being published. Previously, we had been told – by Lila – that publishing the grant agreement would "break donor privacy required in maintaining sustainable donor relations".[3] (Bracken told me that as soon as he advised the WMF of our communication, the WMF released the grant agreement.)
Yet just a couple of hours before the release of that document, you still told the community that it was a "total lie" that there had ever been a search engine project, or that it was part of any grant.[4]
Your behaviour comes across as completely self-serving. The overall impression is one of complete disdain and disrespect for the community. It's as though the community is just a means to an end to you.
There's no basis for trust. And there won't be, until you own up to and apologise for that stuff, instead of complaining that people are "attacking" you.
Andreas
[1] Examples:
A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Specia...
Quote: “To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general “searching” or to try to “be google”. It’s an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It’s a total lie.”
Compare that to the Knowledge Engine grant agreement at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.p...
B. http://archive.is/hFMNV#selection-10409.0-10413.73
Quote: "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes. Writegeist is spreading lies about me, and should be permanently blocked."
Compare that to the Wikimania speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVR82uP_f6Q&t=39m0s
C. http://archive.is/M56Wm#selection-345.0-357.95
Quote: "I just wanted to comment here on the idea that Larry Sanger had the idea for Wikipedia. This is not correct."
Compare that to http://archive.is/kDwzh#selection-95.104-95.331 three-and-a-half years earlier:
Quote: "After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!) ..."
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed – diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org