Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this: * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input directly on Meta. [2] * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3] * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4] * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback, or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
Thank you Nicole, something to read and prepare for Wikimania,
Ad
Op vr 9 aug. 2019 20:37 schreef Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The working groups created a summary of their recommendations in a nutshell. They are published on meta. These orphan pages looked so lonely, I collected them in an orphanage: Wikimedia 2030: Links to nutshells of recommendations per working group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Orphanage.
For ease of access, here are the separate links: 1.Advocacy Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Advocacy/Recommendations/Nutshell 2.Capacity Building Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Capacity_Building/Recommendations/Nutshell 3.Community Health Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Community_Health/Recommendations/Nutshell 4.Diversity Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/Nutshell 5.Partnerships Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Partnerships/Recommendations/Nutshell 6.Product & Technology Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology/Recommendations/Nutshell 7.Resource Allocation Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/Nutshell 8.Revenue Streams Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/Nutshell 9.Roles & Responsibilities Nutshell https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Recommendations/Nutshell
Although in an orphanage, these orphans are still hungry, so please feed them on their talk pages :)
Greetings,
Ad Huikeshoven
P.S. Please be-bold if you do feel the urge to rename or move the orphanage.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Ad,
thanks for your support. These pages are definitely not orphans :) I'm going to publish translations, add the list in a visible place, etc., but I need to fix other stuff first. No worries, all of it will be done before Monday.
P.S. Please give me a chance to move the orphanage. *{{In use}}*!
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 13:28, Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
The working groups created a summary of their recommendations in a nutshell. They are published on meta. These orphan pages looked so lonely, I collected them in an orphanage: Wikimedia 2030: Links to nutshells of recommendations per working group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Orphanage.
For ease of access, here are the separate links: 1.Advocacy Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
2.Capacity Building Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
3.Community Health Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
4.Diversity Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
5.Partnerships Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
6.Product & Technology Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
7.Resource Allocation Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
8.Revenue Streams Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
9.Roles & Responsibilities Nutshell < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Although in an orphanage, these orphans are still hungry, so please feed them on their talk pages :)
Greetings,
Ad Huikeshoven
P.S. Please be-bold if you do feel the urge to rename or move the orphanage.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there should be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would like to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
How about talk pages?
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there should be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would like to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk <tar.locesilion@gmail.com wrote:
How about talk pages?
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there
should
be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would
like
to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
(Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)
Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local communities from above.
Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There is a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content mission by allowing nonfree licenses. ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...) Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed and uncommented?
For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&t... . It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such massive changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the announcements indicate how breathtakingly broad and destructive these proposals are.
Todd
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:35 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk <tar.locesilion@gmail.com wrote:
How about talk pages?
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there
should
be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would
like
to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space.
[3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on Commons*. It is not helped by the poster being a volunteer with barely any activity on Commons, so not the best person to discuss the future of Commons with. Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCop...
The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND material that may be important to minority communities, such as traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials, academic papers, academic books etc.
The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the community. This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
If the WMF sponsored recommendation is hostile up front, I do not see much point in the community discussing the change, it may as well just be mass voted down. Discussion when the team recommending the strategy is openly hostile to "some members of the community" on its own recommendations page, will only lead to more polarization of the WMF versus everyone else type.
Fae
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 02:11, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
(Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)
Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local communities from above.
Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There is a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content mission by allowing nonfree licenses. ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...) Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed and uncommented?
For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&t... . It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such massive changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the announcements indicate how breathtakingly broad and destructive these proposals are.
Todd
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:35 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk <tar.locesilion@gmail.com wrote:
How about talk pages?
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there
should
be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would
like
to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space.
[3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, 12 Aug 2019 at 10:24, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on Commons*.[...] Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCop...
Correction: The note on VP/C was a volunteer's note, there was no announcement by the Working Group.
To correct the absence of a Wikimedia Commons discussion about recommendation to fundamentally change what Wikimedia Commons exists for, the following proposal has been raised on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_t...
Everyone is free to add to discussion there, especially if there is any verifiable evidence that allowing Non Commercial or No Derivatives license constraints would enhance the mission of Wikimedia Commons rather than hamper it.
I would be particularly interested to read the evidence and see a (Wikimedia Commons) case book supporting the claim in the WG recommendations that "Multiple studies have determined that extant movement policies don’t just reflect the systemic biases, they make biases against marginalized communities worse, in effect, re-colonizing and oppressing diverse knowledge(ibid)" as the four references given provide /no evidence/ about Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia Commons in particular "re-colonizing", apart from tangentially using a similar word and so is misrepresenting the researchers and academics that wrote the referenced papers. Though I would be sympathetic to the proper review of evidence when it comes to decolonizing educational material, and taking action such as better application of curation methods, this statement as written appears unsourced political spin and is highly inappropriate from a WMF sponsored working group.
Thanks, Fae
I'm pretty sure that that licensing recommendation is still work-in-progress and the legal implications haven't been analysed yet.
I guess that assuming good faith is not your strong suit, Fae? Be part of the solution, for once.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on Commons*. It is not helped by the poster being a volunteer with barely any activity on Commons, so not the best person to discuss the future of Commons with. Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCop...
The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND material that may be important to minority communities, such as traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials, academic papers, academic books etc.
The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
- Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
- (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
community. This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
If the WMF sponsored recommendation is hostile up front, I do not see much point in the community discussing the change, it may as well just be mass voted down. Discussion when the team recommending the strategy is openly hostile to "some members of the community" on its own recommendations page, will only lead to more polarization of the WMF versus everyone else type.
Fae
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 02:11, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
(Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)
Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local communities from above.
Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There
is
a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content
mission
by allowing nonfree licenses. (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor... )
Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed and uncommented?
For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&t...
. It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such
massive
changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the announcements indicate how breathtakingly broad and destructive these proposals are.
Todd
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:35 AM Isaac Olatunde <reachout2isaac@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk <
tar.locesilion@gmail.com
wrote:
How about talk pages?
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there
should
be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I
would
like
to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement
have
been published. The recommendations have been developed by the
nine
Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build
the
future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via
community
conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge
thank you
to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt
our
movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic
direction.
They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that
stage,
your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what
these
changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context,
what do
you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags.
And
of course, always critically question whether these
recommendations
support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030
space.
[3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live.
[4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share
feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they
receive
into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research,
and
use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help
shape
what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:53, Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure that that licensing recommendation is still work-in-progress and the legal implications haven't been analysed yet.
Huh. Nobody has mentioned legal implications. Not sure there are any that would be especially different to the challenges that Commons volunteers handle every day with the current available licenses.
I guess that assuming good faith is not your strong suit, Fae? Be part of the solution, for once.
Maybe you can focus on the points being raised, like how a case book would actually help make a case for change, rather than hostile character assassination against folks writing to this list? That would be super, and show that you are also part of a "solution", though in this case an actual verifiable "problem" has yet to be identified that this particular recommendation might fix.
Thanks, Fae
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on Commons*. It is not helped by the poster being a volunteer with barely any activity on Commons, so not the best person to discuss the future of Commons with. Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCop...
The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND material that may be important to minority communities, such as traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials, academic papers, academic books etc.
The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
- Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
- (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
community. This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
If the WMF sponsored recommendation is hostile up front, I do not see much point in the community discussing the change, it may as well just be mass voted down. Discussion when the team recommending the strategy is openly hostile to "some members of the community" on its own recommendations page, will only lead to more polarization of the WMF versus everyone else type.
Fae
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 02:11, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
(Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)
Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local communities from above.
Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There
is
a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content
mission
by allowing nonfree licenses. (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor... )
Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed and uncommented?
For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&t...
. It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such
massive
changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the announcements indicate how breathtakingly broad and destructive these proposals are.
Todd
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:35 AM Isaac Olatunde <reachout2isaac@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk <
tar.locesilion@gmail.com
wrote:
How about talk pages?
Z poważaniem / Kind regards
*Szymon Grabarczuk* userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion
ᐧ
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there
should
be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I
would
like
to object to.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
> Dear fellow Wikimedians, > > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement
have
> been published. The recommendations have been developed by the
nine
> Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build
the
> future of our movement. > > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to > research the movement, analyze community input shared via
community
> conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge
thank you
> to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone. > > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt
our
> movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic
direction.
> They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of > future we want to create together. > > The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that
stage,
> your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what
these
> changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context,
what do
> you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags.
And
> of course, always critically question whether these
recommendations
> support the strategic direction. > > There are a few ways to do this: > * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input > directly on Meta. [2] > * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030
space.
[3]
> * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live.
[4]
> * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share
feedback,
> or lead a conversation of your own. [5] > > Over the next month, working groups will take the input they
receive
> into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research,
and
> use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help
shape
> what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond. > > If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
touch.
> > Best wishes, > > Nicole > > [1] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
> [2] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
> [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 > [4] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
> [5] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
> > -- > Nicole Ebber > Adviser International Relations > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 > https://wikimedia.de > > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der > Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns > dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, > Steuernummer 27/029/42207. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 12:47, Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're the only one telling people to shut up here.
I have told nobody to shut up. This is a continuation of the use of character assignation to shut up points of view you do not like. Lay off, it's creating a hostile environment.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?
3rd time: Commons case book. Please make one. The community on Commons can assist you with previous examples that have successfully been used to change policy using evidence, not just rhetoric.
Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Maybe it is better to discuss specific recommendations on their talk pages?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
We might find ourselves discussing here only one specific recommendation while the other working groups' recommendations might fade in shadows of this particular discussion.
Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com writes:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm tempted to sit this one out. The Foundation has organized a bunch of working groups, staffed primarily through volunteers of various types, to present some strategic recommendations for moving forward into the future. We are a movement with flaws and opportunities for improvement, as with any large organization, and it would be a mistake for us to assume that because we found the winning formula in the early 2000s we are completely set for the future. But already, the discussions on Meta are dominated by representatives of The Community™ showing up with all of the usual toxic vested contributor behaviour that I've grown to know and love in my time with this movement.
That said, it is apparent how broken the community/WMF governance model is. Large portions of the community feel disenfranchised on the projects they helped to create, and the WMF is increasingly separate from the community in terms of its goals and priorities. I think that re-imagining the governance of this movement is going to be the first step towards making any sort of progress towards the goals of either group.
Adrian
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:54 AM Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
Maybe it is better to discuss specific recommendations on their talk pages?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
We might find ourselves discussing here only one specific recommendation while the other working groups' recommendations might fade in shadows of this particular discussion.
Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com writes:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 think that re-imagining the governance of this movement is going to be the first step towards making any sort of progress towards the goals of either group.
I think this is what the Roles and Responsibilities working group was trying to do.
12 серпня 2019 р. 15:41:13 EEST, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com написав:
I'm tempted to sit this one out. The Foundation has organized a bunch of working groups, staffed primarily through volunteers of various types, to present some strategic recommendations for moving forward into the future. We are a movement with flaws and opportunities for improvement, as with any large organization, and it would be a mistake for us to assume that because we found the winning formula in the early 2000s we are completely set for the future. But already, the discussions on Meta are dominated by representatives of The Community™ showing up with all of the usual toxic vested contributor behaviour that I've grown to know and love in my time with this movement.
That said, it is apparent how broken the community/WMF governance model is. Large portions of the community feel disenfranchised on the projects they helped to create, and the WMF is increasingly separate from the community in terms of its goals and priorities. I think that re-imagining the governance of this movement is going to be the first step towards making any sort of progress towards the goals of either group.
Adrian
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:54 AM Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
Maybe it is better to discuss specific recommendations on their talk pages?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
We might find ourselves discussing here only one specific
recommendation
while the other working groups' recommendations might fade in shadows
of
this particular discussion.
Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com writes:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the
current
licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?"
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now, specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear all,
We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts. They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single individuals.
Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration, offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?"
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now, specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:51 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts. They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single individuals.
Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration, offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?"
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now, specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Yaroslav,
No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
And that is why, even a year into this working group process, a number of the recommendations are *still* phrased as suggestions that the Wikimedia movement collectively should develop principles for such-and-such an area.
I think many people are reading these draft recommendations as something they are not.
Also, I find it very ironic that many people are reacting to these strategy process as if it was some method of the WMF inflicting its will on everyone else, when actually many of the recommendations would result in very significant changes to the WMF as an organisation.
Chris
If that is so, then what we have here is a failure to communicate. Again By now we should be getting used to it. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 12 August 2019 18:20 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hi Yaroslav,
No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
And that is why, even a year into this working group process, a number of the recommendations are *still* phrased as suggestions that the Wikimedia movement collectively should develop principles for such-and-such an area.
I think many people are reading these draft recommendations as something they are not.
Also, I find it very ironic that many people are reacting to these strategy process as if it was some method of the WMF inflicting its will on everyone else, when actually many of the recommendations would result in very significant changes to the WMF as an organisation.
Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Dear all,.
As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
Hello Nicole, For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive" and not "solution-oriented"? Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to be solved by ND and NC content? Kind regards Ziko
specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Ziko,
There is in fact a rationale within the text of the recommendation. In essence, it's that some communities will never share their heritage if it can then be re-used in a manner they consider disrespectful.
Of course one can disagree with that statement on a factual level, or ask for evidence behind it.
Or one can agree with it but disagree with the intention of the recommendation.
Or one can agree with the intention, but disagree about the the effectiveness of allowing some NC or ND content on some Wikimedia projects as a method of achieving it.
What is rather less constructive is gathering pitchforks and flaming torches against the OUTRAGE of THE WMF making every Wikimedia project immediately accept unfree content.
Chris
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, 17:25 Ziko van Dijk, zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Dear all,.
As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
Hello Nicole, For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive" and not "solution-oriented"? Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to be solved by ND and NC content? Kind regards Ziko
specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the
underlying
facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But
even
then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
what
one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the
current
licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Ziko and others - please, please provide your feedback to all of the working groups on all of the ideas. Please tell us when you see a draft recommendation that seems to be right. Please tell us when you see a draft recommendation that you think is unreasonable - and tell us what causes your concern. Some of the draft recommendations are likely to sound like good ideas (or even "this is what we do now!") while others will seem to be pretty radical. If you see a draft recommendation that you think is really going "too far", it would be really helpful to hear from you as community members what you'd consider to be a reasonable alternative, or a middle ground that you think would be acceptable.
I'm on the Roles & Responsibilities working group, and I am seeing several recommendations from other groups that I plan to comment upon, too; some of them seem like really good ideas to me, but there are ones that I don't really think are a great idea, too.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 12:25, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Dear all,.
As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
Hello Nicole, For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive" and not "solution-oriented"? Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to be solved by ND and NC content? Kind regards Ziko
specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the
underlying
facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But
even
then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
what
one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the
current
licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
All change has negative connotations to some members of the community
to be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant risks?
As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly argue that it is any of those things.
Hi Andy,
the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.
Best, Philip
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 18:53, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? All change has negative connotations to some members of the communityto be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant risks?
As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly argue that it is any of those things.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:43, Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
these are still rather talking points than specific visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.
Beyond what I have already said, I do not see any merit in discussing glib statements like "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community", whether as "talking points" or anything else
I would be happy to understand the thought process behind the working group's proposals, and to discuss that, if they care to explain it by giving a sensible and considered set of answers to the question "Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?".
It's now over a month since the appended exchange, when I suggested that the answer "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community", to the question "Could this Recommendation [to, in part, allow material with NC and ND licences] have a negative impact/change?" be rewritten to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant risks.
I've just checked, and it's unchanged.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? All change has negative connotations to some members of the communityto be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant risks?
As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly argue that it is any of those things.
I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but as I understand there are two key messages:
*To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural development as out organisation mature over time
*To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly atmosphere where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
Anders
Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
Dear all,
We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts. They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single individuals.
Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration, offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?"
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now, specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories from San Francisco to Dhaka because wages are much lower there, while parading it as moving towards "diversity" and "inclusion".
Paulo
Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se escreveu no dia segunda, 12/08/2019 à(s) 18:31:
I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but as I understand there are two key messages:
*To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural development as out organisation mature over time
*To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly atmosphere where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
Anders
Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
Dear all,
We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts. They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified important for our movement’s future. They are the product of
conversations
over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups
are
eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single individuals.
Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial
collaboration,
offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is
a
process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?"
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now, specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
what
one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
That is a way you can look at it, but is it realistic? (it would depend on details, which we do not have) SF is an expensive place to pay staff, and the SF point of view may be overrepresented. Spreading it around a bit may be better value for money, and could improve diversity and inclusion. The devil is in the details, and we have no details yet. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 14 August 2019 16:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories from San Francisco to Dhaka because wages are much lower there, while parading it as moving towards "diversity" and "inclusion".
Paulo
Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se escreveu no dia segunda, 12/08/2019 à(s) 18:31:
I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but as I understand there are two key messages:
*To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural development as out organisation mature over time
*To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly atmosphere where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
Anders
Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
Dear all,
We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts. They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified important for our movement’s future. They are the product of
conversations
over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups
are
eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single individuals.
Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial
collaboration,
offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is
a
process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme?"
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now, specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
what
one does.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current licensing scheme? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort. I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities.
The Terms of Use/Licensing Policy recommendation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9 is more broad than the addition of NC and ND licensing. "we assume that it would be necessary to *modify the “Terms of Use” especially to address community health, foster diversity and address systemic biases.*" This would be a clear statement of the Foundation's future purpose, therefore I strongly agree with it.
Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a very welcome change. The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html,2 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418) that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
Aron
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND material that may be important to minority communities, such as traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials, academic papers, academic books etc.
The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
- Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
- (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
community. This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
ᐧ
Hello Aron,
Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Aron Manning < aronmanning5@gmail.com>:
Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a very welcome change.
The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded as "free". See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commo...
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html,2 < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f...
)
that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The - interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are long in the Public Domain.
Kind regards Ziko
Aron
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND material that may be important to minority communities, such as traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials, academic papers, academic books etc.
The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
- Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
- (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
community. This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
ᐧ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded as "free".
I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.
There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free content converted to "unfree":
- Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very successfully. - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no Internet-in-a-Box). - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free encyclopedia. - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content is available with free license. - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent with reverse-image search. - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these licenses when it's truly necessary.
See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commo...
Thank you, it's really excellent.
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
long in the Public Domain.
My bad. 1st article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html is about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book." 2nd article https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf is about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as well as public ire."
It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.
Aron
Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing" section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain intact without misappropriation, etc."
The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English Wikisource volunteers.
To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a compelling argument.
Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
-Pete -- Pete Forsyth Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata, Commons, and Meta Wiki.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... ? [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:41 PM Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded as "free".
I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.
There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free content converted to "unfree":
- Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very successfully.
- At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no Internet-in-a-Box).
- If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free encyclopedia.
- If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content is available with free license.
- If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent with reverse-image search.
- After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these licenses when it's truly necessary.
See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commo...
Thank you, it's really excellent.
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
long in the Public Domain.
My bad. 1st article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html is about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book." 2nd article < https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f614...
is about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as well as public ire."
It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing" section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain intact without misappropriation, etc."
The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English Wikisource volunteers.
To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a compelling argument.
Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
-Pete
Pete Forsyth Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata, Commons, and Meta Wiki.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... ? [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a different starting policy foundation?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:18 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities.
I think that idea does come up pretty often, and is usually, and appropriately, viewed with some skepticism.
An idea I think is too little discussed is that, when you've had great success at assembling hundreds of thousands of people to work on something, it is a very risky proposition to make fundamental changes to that "something" without first undergoing a deliberate and comprehensive approach to building buy-in throughout that community. (See "Spanish Fork")
-Pete -- Pete Forsyth User:Peteforsyth on (primarily) English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata, Commons, and Meta Wiki.
See bottom for reply.
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: 13 August 2019 01:18 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing" section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain intact without misappropriation, etc."
The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English Wikisource volunteers.
To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a compelling argument.
Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
-Pete
Pete Forsyth Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata, Commons, and Meta Wiki.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... ? [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a different starting policy foundation?
Response: If the movement as a whole considers it desirable to host a repository for NC/ND content, then they should indeed create a new project where it would be welcome, and not push it where it is not welcome, because the volunteers who have is foisted on them are likely to leave if they don’t like it. If there is enough support for the content, there should be enough volunteers to deal with the content. If there are not enough volunteers, then the people who think the content is important enough can pay for people to curate it. If it succeeds, fine. If it fails, also fine, as it would not destroy anything else while failing. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's suggestion is good.
A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on Wikipedias, where the media could get a lot of visibility but also cause additional licensing complexity beyond what we already have with the English Wikipedia fair use exception. This issue would need some deliberation, but any outcome wouldn't be a blocker to a new repository for hosting NC and ND media.
I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals. I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed, nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to cool might be good before engaging.
" I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed" - Don't worry, it is not "their ideas. As Nicole Ebber explained, those recommendations resulted from a lot of different inputs, and none of them is supposed to be the brainchild of anyone inside the WGs. If they are nonsense, don't be afraid to go there and tell/write what you think.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 13/08/2019 à(s) 22:09:
I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's suggestion is good.
A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on Wikipedias, where the media could get a lot of visibility but also cause additional licensing complexity beyond what we already have with the English Wikipedia fair use exception. This issue would need some deliberation, but any outcome wouldn't be a blocker to a new repository for hosting NC and ND media.
I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals. I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed, nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to cool might be good before engaging.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed
I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community".
"All change has negative connotations to some members of the community". That statement may be true, but it is not useful. Not even slightly. It could serve as a preamble to a detailed exposition, but on its own in the specific context it just looks arrogant and incompetent. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett Sent: 14 August 2019 18:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed
I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community".
I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals. I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed, nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to cool might be good before engaging.
Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than angry ones, of course :)
(I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond promptly, though!)
Thanks,
Chris
Also, keep in mind that feedback on what recommendations you wanted / expected to see but did not find is just as much worth as criticism (or praise) of the existing ones.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 21:31 Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals
and
I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those
proposals.
I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually
dismissed,
nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community.
I
would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best
to
do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to cool might be good before engaging.
Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than angry ones, of course :)
(I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond promptly, though!)
Thanks,
Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:40, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
1st article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html is about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
You're quoting out of context. The words you quote are proceeded by "The lawsuit says that...". So it's no more than an allegation, which may well prove to be false. No argument is made, that an "NC" licence could be applied to images that were taken "almost 170 years " ago and whose copyright has therefore almost certainly expired. If such images were published by a GLAM under an NC licence, we'd likely ignore it and treat them as PD.
2nd article https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf is about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as well as public ire."
The original is paywalled for me, but from what you quote, none of those case studies concerns the use of media which could have been released under an NC licence, and no argument is made that such a licence could be applied to anything which would prevent such cultural appropriation.
It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.
I see no basis for concluding that NC or ND address the probelm to which you refer. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your reasoning, with examples?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not be stored on Commons. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 13 August 2019 00:41 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded as "free".
I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.
There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free content converted to "unfree":
- Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very successfully. - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no Internet-in-a-Box). - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free encyclopedia. - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content is available with free license. - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent with reverse-image search. - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these licenses when it's truly necessary.
See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commo...
Thank you, it's really excellent.
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
long in the Public Domain.
My bad. 1st article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html is about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book." 2nd article https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf is about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as well as public ire."
It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it there.
Aron
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not be stored on Commons. Cheers, Peter
Done, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 15 August 2019 07:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it there.
Aron
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not be stored on Commons. Cheers, Peter
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote: .
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html,2 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418) that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
Aron
1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one. That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote: .
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html,2 <
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f...
) that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
Aron
1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process first, with uncertain outcome.
(I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft, so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.)
Cheers, Lucas
On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one. That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote: .
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html,2 <
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f...
) that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
Aron
1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and commercializes it anyway.
If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons, in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at the same time. If it is notable, we may try to accommodate it in some projects that allow that kind of content under an exception policy.
In any case, I don't believe it is in Wikimedia scope to worry about the possible misuses people can do of the content we provide, and much less to subvert our license policy in order to avoid stuff we should not be worried with in first place.
Best, Paulo
A quarta, 14 de ago de 2019, 23:27, Lucas Werkmeister < mail@lucaswerkmeister.de> escreveu:
I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process first, with uncertain outcome.
(I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft, so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.)
Cheers, Lucas
On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as
personal
image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by
3rd
parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one. That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue
the
infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do
it
freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just
because
some other people, which have not any legal right over that content,
claim
that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com
wrote:
.
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html
,2
<
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f...
) that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show
the
benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
Aron
1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Hi Paulo,
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and commercializes it anyway.
In practice, this can happen. Two points to keep in mind:
* Building trust and relationships with new communities may require taking steps that we may not have been taking so far. People operate in different contexts and they have varying experiences, and we may sometimes have to change the way we do things to include them and their knowledge. We should get comfortable thinking about these trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and content to the project. (I'm not arguing that we should do what this proposal says at this point. We should discuss it though in the talk page.)
* Having some legal pathway can be attractive to some folks, /even if/ they don't exercise it. This is an assurance that they can have some control over their culture and the narratives around it and I can see how this can be important for some marginalized communities. This middle step may be needed. Also, if the legal pathway is there, they can always some day decide to pursue it.
If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons, in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at the same time.
Two points again: ;)
* Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages. Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3 different options available.
* This won't be only their problem. It will be our shared problem. If Commons ends up not being the solution, we shouldn't stop there. We should think through what else we can do to make bringing of their knowledge to Wikimedia projects happen. While I don't know what the answers are, I know that we should try more. From a narrow research perspective: this is immensely important for addressing Wikimedia's knowledge gaps for the sake of our own immediate users but also for the sake of indirect users of Wikimedia content. Wikimedia is imo one of the cornerstones of the Web. The content we collectively bring to Wikimedia projects is no longer /just/ used directly on Wikipedia (even that alone is enough argument to attempt to find solutions for the kind of gaps we're talking about). It's being used by a variety of technologies to build algorithms and machines that have impact on people's lives. Gaps in Wikimedia can become a source of bias and gaps on search engines, home devices, school material, ... .
I'll keep the specific comments about the proposals for the talk pages.
Best, Leila
Hello Leila,
Just two quick notes on what you've said: *" We should get comfortable thinking about these trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and content to the project" - I face this argument constantly in my life as an active Wikimedian. University teachers tell we can have all papers from their university on Commons, Wikisource, if we allow NC-ND. VIPs tell me they will give a number of exclusive materials, given that they are blocked from commercial use. Professional photographers, same story. To all of them I explain this is a question of a basic principle of the project, the principle of Free Knowledge, and that this is the essence, this is at the core of Wikimedia projects, and can't be negotiated. This is how I've been understanding our communities general thinking and ideals for the many years I've been around, so changing that to accommodate more diversity really seems something absolutely alien to our mission as Wikimedians, independently of the merits of the content that could be incorporated in the projects that way. *In order to protect local folklore from "undue exploitation", Mozambique government has decided that all manifestations of folklore in the country are protected by copyright, and that they own that copyright. Result: we end up with an huge cultural gap in Mozambique at the Wikimedia projects. Not only in Mozambique, but in a number of other countries that apply similar legal restrictions to this kind of cultural materials.
The solution for both cases has been, for well more than a decade, to include that content as necessary under special provisions in some of our projects - SEE EDP at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy - depending on approval of the project local community. So the solution for that problem already exists for long, and this is not only reinventing the wheel, but doing so at the expense of our most dear core principles and mission.
Best, Paulo
Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia quinta, 15/08/2019 à(s) 05:42:
Hi Paulo,
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license
and
commercializes it anyway.
In practice, this can happen. Two points to keep in mind:
- Building trust and relationships with new communities may require
taking steps that we may not have been taking so far. People operate in different contexts and they have varying experiences, and we may sometimes have to change the way we do things to include them and their knowledge. We should get comfortable thinking about these trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and content to the project. (I'm not arguing that we should do what this proposal says at this point. We should discuss it though in the talk page.)
- Having some legal pathway can be attractive to some folks, /even if/
they don't exercise it. This is an assurance that they can have some control over their culture and the narratives around it and I can see how this can be important for some marginalized communities. This middle step may be needed. Also, if the legal pathway is there, they can always some day decide to pursue it.
If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in
Commons,
in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things
at
the same time.
Two points again: ;)
- Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3 different options available.
- This won't be only their problem. It will be our shared problem. If
Commons ends up not being the solution, we shouldn't stop there. We should think through what else we can do to make bringing of their knowledge to Wikimedia projects happen. While I don't know what the answers are, I know that we should try more. From a narrow research perspective: this is immensely important for addressing Wikimedia's knowledge gaps for the sake of our own immediate users but also for the sake of indirect users of Wikimedia content. Wikimedia is imo one of the cornerstones of the Web. The content we collectively bring to Wikimedia projects is no longer /just/ used directly on Wikipedia (even that alone is enough argument to attempt to find solutions for the kind of gaps we're talking about). It's being used by a variety of technologies to build algorithms and machines that have impact on people's lives. Gaps in Wikimedia can become a source of bias and gaps on search engines, home devices, school material, ... .
I'll keep the specific comments about the proposals for the talk pages.
Best, Leila
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3
different options available.
And his option of a dedicated project for non-free content has been already proposed in 2015 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and 2018 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2), proposed name *NonFreeWiki */ *FairUseWiki */ *UnCommons */ etc. Discuss at: recommendation talk page section https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#NonFreeWiki
I was pretty surprised this was not mentioned in the recommendation. That proposal answers many questions, missing from the current recommendation.
Aron
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com writes:
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there should be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would like to object to.
The Recommendations page contains a "How to Share Your Feedback" section.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
Hello,
There was once a report in which I read: Wikimedia Commons should allow NC and ND content because that is somehow good for "communities that are historically prohibited from telling their stories". Then I asked on the talk page for the reasoning behind this demand/postulation. The answer I got was not very substantial. I am very open to discuss the pros and cons of e.g. opening Wikimedia Commons to NC or ND. But sorry, I find it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation on this basis.
Kind regards Ziko
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Rep...
Am Fr., 9. Aug. 2019 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yah I have mixed feelings about NC. There is a lot of great content under this license which would benefit our readers if we could use it. We for example have folks like Khan Academy and the World Health Organization who refuse to adopt open licenses. They tell us that we can use their content right now as we are a non commercial project but that they will not chance.
Yet us allowing NC will keep us from forcing those who are currently using this horribly unclear license to adopt an actual open one. I have had those who create NC context explicitly say we CANNOT use it on "Internet-in-a-Box" as even though we are selling the devices at below the cost of making them in the developing world, they are still being sold. This makes me want to have nothing to do with NC.
ND is even worse. This means we cannot translate content and I am not interested in seeing us adopt anything which we cannot translate.
James
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:29 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
There was once a report in which I read: Wikimedia Commons should allow NC and ND content because that is somehow good for "communities that are historically prohibited from telling their stories". Then I asked on the talk page for the reasoning behind this demand/postulation. The answer I got was not very substantial. I am very open to discuss the pros and cons of e.g. opening Wikimedia Commons to NC or ND. But sorry, I find it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation on this basis.
Kind regards Ziko
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Rep...
Am Fr., 9. Aug. 2019 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
NC would also create a nightmare for downstream reusers.
If I want to use some portions of a Wikipedia article in a blog post, and I have a couple ads on my blog to help defray the hosting costs, does that violate NC? And certainly the stuff James brings up, regarding providing mechanisms for offline access, even if no profit is made from such an endeavor and the "sale" only helps to defray part of the costs.
The decision to require open content licenses was not an arbitrary one. When we say "The free encyclopedia", that means in terms of "libre", not just "gratis". Sure, we can legally use "noncommercial" or "no derivatives" or "for educational purposes only" licensed works--but our users cannot reuse it, and that they can do that has always been part of what we have promised them. Our current minimal acceptance of nonfree content already makes that a bit of a morass for would-be reusers; doing so on a wide scale would make it a hopeless minefield.
Todd
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:45 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yah I have mixed feelings about NC. There is a lot of great content under this license which would benefit our readers if we could use it. We for example have folks like Khan Academy and the World Health Organization who refuse to adopt open licenses. They tell us that we can use their content right now as we are a non commercial project but that they will not chance.
Yet us allowing NC will keep us from forcing those who are currently using this horribly unclear license to adopt an actual open one. I have had those who create NC context explicitly say we CANNOT use it on "Internet-in-a-Box" as even though we are selling the devices at below the cost of making them in the developing world, they are still being sold. This makes me want to have nothing to do with NC.
ND is even worse. This means we cannot translate content and I am not interested in seeing us adopt anything which we cannot translate.
James
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:29 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
There was once a report in which I read: Wikimedia Commons should allow
NC
and ND content because that is somehow good for "communities that are historically prohibited from telling their stories". Then I asked on the talk page for the reasoning behind this demand/postulation. The answer I got was not very substantial. I am very open to discuss the pros and cons of e.g. opening Wikimedia Commons to NC or ND. But sorry, I find it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation on this basis.
Kind regards Ziko
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Rep...
Am Fr., 9. Aug. 2019 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for the update, Nicole.
As I have been reading portions of the recommendations, I am finding it helpful to remind myself that these proposals are drafts, and to assume good faith when reading them. I have a variety of thoughts regarding proposals, including "I completely agree", "This is less ambitious than I think it should be", "That is impractical", "That is an interesting idea that we should consider in more detail", "I agree that there is problem X but this proposal would lead to more harm than good".
I suggest that the strategy team and working groups develop these drafts into thoughtful and deep documents with extensive supporting references where possible, so that we can have a more informed discussion about the merits of the ideas. I would like to encourage working group members to keep their minds open to the possibility that proposals may be good to modify, enhance, diminish, or withdraw based on the additional research and their discussions with the broader community. Collegial and thoughtful discussions will probably be fruitful in the long term.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 11:37 Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Nicole,
I suggest also to harmonize a little bit the reccomandations of the working groups too.
I had a quick reading and I found several conflictual points among the different working groups.
An example is the technology working group where the first reccomandation is about a decentralization and I suppose about a "strong" decentralization where everyone can contribute to the vision, while the Resource Allocation reports the concept of hubs in several points of their reccomandations.
In this case to decentralize from one point to another point a competence doesn't mean "decentralization" but it's "delocalization". Basically it remains a central point of competence delocated geographically but basically a central point (so the opposite of decentralization).
This is an example but there are several ones and the time is short to comment.
Kind regards
On 09/08/2019 20:36, Nicole Ebber wrote:
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not being published at the same time as our recommendations.)
While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed comments.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Thanks,
Chris Keating User:The Land
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Chris,
There is perhaps some confusion here. Most Wikipedians are accustomed to a process of *discussion*, during which a consensus emerges and is accepted by the community at large, and implemented by community prcesses. It has perhaps not been made perfectly clear that this is a *feedback* process, where the Working Groups publish their recommendations, the community pass their comments back to the WG, and the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF. Some of the angst in previous comments on the list (about lack of time, and so forth) derives from the fact that this crucial difference has clearly not been universally understood.
Jeff
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 6:01 PM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not being published at the same time as our recommendations.)
While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed comments.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Thanks,
Chris Keating User:The Land
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
While some of the changes recommended may be in the gift of the WMF to apply unilaterally, others are not, and there is ample evidence that attempting to do so would be far from advisable.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
That step is not mentioned at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
Jeff
I think that is very much the point Andy is making. To be reasonably representative of the "Movement" the recommendations should be accepted by the wider community, otherwise all legitimacy falls away, and it becomes the political games of a clique. Cheers P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hawke Sent: 20 August 2019 20:49 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
That step is not mentioned at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent... ?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be considered in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3 representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, or doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm and norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time zones, languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance and identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle for us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development of recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is only to the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible in front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build our future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather than rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in good faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be considered in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3 representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, or doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm and norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time zones, languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance and identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle for us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development of recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is only to the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible in front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build our future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather than rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in good faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed the opinion https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am... over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3 representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible in front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather than rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am... over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead
of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring
3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
To clarify on this, yes we need to make changes as a movement, but we need to do so in collaboration with each other. My hope is that the wider community will engage with the proposals that have been made. And that we can develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the movement can support.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:04 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am... over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction
of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring 3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences
on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
> community. >
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Hello James,
If we can do that together, it is not evident from the timeline sent by Nicole. How can we " collaborate with each other", "the wider community engage with the proposals that have been made", and we together "develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the movement can support" if after 15 September or so we will be excluded from the entire process that will led to the final recommendations?
All we can do is to comment on this very preliminary draft, kind of shouting in the dark in the hopes that someone would hear, with very little dialogue with the people that will be defining them, if at all.
Paulo
James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 23/08/2019 à(s) 12:09:
To clarify on this, yes we need to make changes as a movement, but we need to do so in collaboration with each other. My hope is that the wider community will engage with the proposals that have been made. And that we can develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the movement can support.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:04 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take
a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction
of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring 3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop
a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
(Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences
on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Andy > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one
> > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
> > community. > > > > That step is not mentioned at > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
> ? > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction
of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
(Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences
on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one
> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
> community. >
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
(Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
> Andy > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one
> > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
> > community. > > > > That step is not mentioned at > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
> ? > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
(Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
> out by multiple people from the very beginning) > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
> wrote: > >> Andy >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>> >>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>> >>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one
>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia >>> community. >>> >> >> That step is not mentioned at >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>> ? >> >> Jeff >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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>
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
@ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some requires more discussion and some adjustments.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
> Dear all, > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
> > DRAFTS > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
> progress levels. > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into
> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
> rushing to a quick fix. > > INTEGRATION > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
> harmonization across working groups. > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be considered > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will
> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. > > TIMELINE > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple > languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
the > recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for > harmonization. > > At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
more > coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by > facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and
> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and
> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
the > organizational and movement level. They also participate as the > representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the > recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for > implementation. > > Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to > the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for > approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and
> owned across the movement. > > WORKING GROUPS > We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by > the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a > steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
> staff and board. > > The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or > doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft > recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and > norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
zones, > languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and > identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for > us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of > recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to > the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our > future together. > > Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good > faith, and in a constructive way. > > Let me know if you have further questions. > > Best wishes, > Nicole > > [1] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
> [2] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed >> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
>> wrote: >> >>> Andy >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < > andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>> >>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one >>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider > Wikimedia >>>> community. >>>> >>> >>> That step is not mentioned at >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>> ? >>> >>> Jeff >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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>
> > > > -- > Nicole Ebber > Adviser International Relations > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 > https://wikimedia.de > > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! > https://spenden.wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Sorry, by "you" I meant the board.
It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.
On Aug 24, 2019, at 1:29 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
@ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some requires more discussion and some adjustments.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the > process of implementation. > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
> way till implementation phase. > > Paulo > > Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, > 22/08/2019 > à(s) 11:58: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>> >> DRAFTS >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a >> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple >> progress levels. >> >> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and >> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation > to >> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through > a >> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the > reasoning >> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways > to >> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into >> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of >> rushing to a quick fix. >> >> INTEGRATION >> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
> via >> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration > of >> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
>> harmonization across working groups. >> >> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it >> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already >> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be > considered >> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will >> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >> >> TIMELINE >> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the >> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
> read >> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple >> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
> the >> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working >> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for >> harmonization. >> >> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3 >> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
> more >> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also >> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to >> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and >> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and >> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
> the >> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate >> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >> implementation. >> >> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them > to >> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will >> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
> for >> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and >> owned across the movement. >> >> WORKING GROUPS >> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
> by >> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a >> steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group >> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, >> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation >> staff and board. >> >> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, > or >> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
> and >> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
> zones, >> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
> and >> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
> for >> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
> of >> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included >> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is only > to >> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in >> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
> our >> future together. >> >> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather than >> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
> good >> faith, and in a constructive way. >> >> Let me know if you have further questions. >> >> Best wishes, >> Nicole >> >> [1] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>> [2] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been > pointed >>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>> >>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
> one >>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >> Wikimedia >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>> ? >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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>
>> >> >> >> -- >> Nicole Ebber >> Adviser International Relations >> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin >> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >> https://wikimedia.de >> >> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der > Menschheit >> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter >> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.
Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into two opposing camps. The recommendations are about the path we choose for the future, and the conversations are your chance to contribute to that vision.
Aron
You are right and this is what it should be.
Anyways we must consider that the selection of the working groups followed more the parameters to select the "representatives" of Wikimedia than the "representatives" of Wikipedia's communities.
Basically the experience in Wikimedia projects has been quite neglected.
I have a personal feeling that the diversity has been stressed a lot but neglecting some parameters which are valued by the community and for this reason the community doesn't feel represented by these members of the working groups.
The comunity is perceiving these recommendations more likely a vision lowered from above.
On 24/08/2019 11:44, Aron Manning wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.
Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into two opposing camps. The recommendations are about the path we choose for the future, and the conversations are your chance to contribute to that vision.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
" I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group" - At the meta pages everybody can see the community is engaging very actively, it's WG and core group engagement there which is very low or null. And we are already only some 3 weeks before the window for community engagement closes. How can this look good and inspiring?
I also don't understand why people keep saying that "many of the recommendations are fine" - Those obviously are not the problem. The problem is that we, as the wider community, are now seeing the final draft for some quite egregiously controversial recommendations, and there is not any indication that they will be removed or adapted in a consensus with the community. Some crucial WGs such as Roles & Responsibilities seem to have reduced the output to 3 complex theoretical models that we are supposed to evaluate in some few days. This can't be right.
Paulo
James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 24/08/2019 à(s) 09:51:
@ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some requires more discussion and some adjustments.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
the
> process of implementation. > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
all
the
> way till implementation phase. > > Paulo > > Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, > 22/08/2019 > à(s) 11:58: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>> >> DRAFTS >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a >> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple >> progress levels. >> >> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities
and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation > to >> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through > a >> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the > reasoning >> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could
be
ways > to >> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into >> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of >> rushing to a quick fix. >> >> INTEGRATION >> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
and
> via >> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration > of >> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
>> harmonization across working groups. >> >> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it >> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already >> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be > considered >> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will >> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >> >> TIMELINE >> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and
the
>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
> read >> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
> the >> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working >> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for >> harmonization. >> >> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3 >> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
> more >> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
also >> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to >> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and >> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and >> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
> the >> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate >> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >> implementation. >> >> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
them > to >> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will >> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
> for >> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and >> owned across the movement. >> >> WORKING GROUPS >> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
> by >> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by
a
>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
Group >> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, >> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation >> staff and board. >> >> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, > or >> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
> and >> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
> zones, >> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
> and >> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
> for >> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
> of >> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included >> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It
is
only > to >> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in >> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
> our >> future together. >> >> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
than >> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
> good >> faith, and in a constructive way. >> >> Let me know if you have further questions. >> >> Best wishes, >> Nicole >> >> [1] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>> [2] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been > pointed >>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>> >>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
> one >>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >> Wikimedia >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>> ? >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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>
>> >> >> >> -- >> Nicole Ebber >> Adviser International Relations >> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >> https://wikimedia.de >> >> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der > Menschheit >> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter >> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
(Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
> out by multiple people from the very beginning) > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
> wrote: > >> Andy >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>> >>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>> >>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one
>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia >>> community. >>> >> >> That step is not mentioned at >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>> ? >> >> Jeff >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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>
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment, it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken, fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
> Dear all, > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
> > DRAFTS > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
> progress levels. > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into
> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
> rushing to a quick fix. > > INTEGRATION > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
> harmonization across working groups. > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be considered > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will
> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. > > TIMELINE > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple > languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
the > recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for > harmonization. > > At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
more > coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by > facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and
> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and
> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
the > organizational and movement level. They also participate as the > representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the > recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for > implementation. > > Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to > the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for > approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and
> owned across the movement. > > WORKING GROUPS > We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by > the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a > steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
> staff and board. > > The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or > doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft > recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and > norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
zones, > languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and > identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for > us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of > recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to > the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our > future together. > > Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good > faith, and in a constructive way. > > Let me know if you have further questions. > > Best wishes, > Nicole > > [1] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
> [2] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed >> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
>> wrote: >> >>> Andy >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < > andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>> >>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one >>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider > Wikimedia >>>> community. >>>> >>> >>> That step is not mentioned at >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>> ? >>> >>> Jeff >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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>
> > > > -- > Nicole Ebber > Adviser International Relations > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 > https://wikimedia.de > > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! > https://spenden.wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment, it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken, fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
the
way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
> Dear all, > > Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our
> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
> > DRAFTS > As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are
> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
few
> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
> progress levels. > > I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and > community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to > change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a > quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning > behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to > mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into
> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of
> rushing to a quick fix. > > INTEGRATION > The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
and
via > different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of > their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
> harmonization across working groups. > > The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it
> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be considered > in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will
> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. > > TIMELINE > We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the > translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
read > and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple > languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
the > recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for > harmonization. > > At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3
> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
more > coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by > facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to
> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and
> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and
> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
the > organizational and movement level. They also participate as the > representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the > recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for > implementation. > > Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to > the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
for > approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and
> owned across the movement. > > WORKING GROUPS > We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
by > the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a > steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
> staff and board. > > The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or > doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft > recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
and > norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
zones, > languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
and > identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
for > us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
of > recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to > the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in
> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
our > future together. > > Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
good > faith, and in a constructive way. > > Let me know if you have further questions. > > Best wishes, > Nicole > > [1] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
> [2] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed >> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
>> wrote: >> >>> Andy >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < > andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>> >>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
one >>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider > Wikimedia >>>> community. >>>> >>> >>> That step is not mentioned at >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>> ? >>> >>> Jeff >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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>
> > > > -- > Nicole Ebber > Adviser International Relations > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 > https://wikimedia.de > > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! > https://spenden.wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment, it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken, fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
the
> process of implementation. > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
all
the
> way till implementation phase. > > Paulo > > Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, > 22/08/2019 > à(s) 11:58: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>> >> DRAFTS >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a >> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple >> progress levels. >> >> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities
and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation > to >> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through > a >> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the > reasoning >> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could
be
ways > to >> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into >> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of >> rushing to a quick fix. >> >> INTEGRATION >> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
and
> via >> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration > of >> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
>> harmonization across working groups. >> >> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it >> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already >> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be > considered >> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will >> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >> >> TIMELINE >> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and
the
>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
> read >> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
> the >> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working >> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for >> harmonization. >> >> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3 >> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
> more >> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
also >> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to >> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and >> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and >> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
> the >> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate >> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >> implementation. >> >> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
them > to >> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will >> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
> for >> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and >> owned across the movement. >> >> WORKING GROUPS >> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
> by >> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by
a
>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
Group >> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, >> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation >> staff and board. >> >> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, > or >> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
> and >> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
> zones, >> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
> and >> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
> for >> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
> of >> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included >> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It
is
only > to >> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in >> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
> our >> future together. >> >> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
than >> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
> good >> faith, and in a constructive way. >> >> Let me know if you have further questions. >> >> Best wishes, >> Nicole >> >> [1] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>> [2] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been > pointed >>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>> >>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
> one >>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >> Wikimedia >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>> ? >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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>
>> >> >> >> -- >> Nicole Ebber >> Adviser International Relations >> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >> https://wikimedia.de >> >> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der > Menschheit >> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter >> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Gerard
A good point. The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the WMF for free. In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Paulo, > > You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
just
> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed > the opinion > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
> over > a much less dramatic change. > >> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be > acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part
of
this
> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
have
to
> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
step
when > needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
> return when the time is right. > > I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. > > Jeff > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the
WGs
8and >> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. >> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be >> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
the
>> process of implementation. >> >> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the > Wikimedia >> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
all
the >> way till implementation phase. >> >> Paulo >> >> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, >> 22/08/2019 >> à(s) 11:58: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing
so
much >>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
> our >>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>>> >>> DRAFTS >>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
> are >>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but > working >>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
Some >>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, >>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
few >>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give > everyone a >>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into > multiple >>> progress levels. >>> >>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities
and
>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A > recommendation >> to >>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go > through >> a >>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into
the
>> reasoning >>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could
be
> ways >> to >>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
> into >>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead > of >>> rushing to a quick fix. >>> >>> INTEGRATION >>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
and >> via >>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next > iteration >> of >>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
for
>>> harmonization across working groups. >>> >>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
Some
of
> it >>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
or
>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or > already >>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be >> considered >>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
> will >>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >>> >>> TIMELINE >>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and
the
>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
>> read >>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
do
>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of >> the >>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
> working >>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
for
>>> harmonization. >>> >>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring > 3 >>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
>> more >>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
> also >>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa >>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
> to >>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
> and >>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
> and >>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on >> the >>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can > anticipate >>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >>> implementation. >>> >>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
> them >> to >>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal >>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
> will >>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures >> for >>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
> and >>> owned across the movement. >>> >>> WORKING GROUPS >>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
that >>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures
is
owned >> by >>> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected
by
a
>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
> Group >>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different >>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
> groups, >>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia > Foundation >>> staff and board. >>> >>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being > volunteers, >> or >>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
storm >> and >>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
>> zones, >>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance >> and >>> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle >> for >>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development >> of >>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
many >>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – > included >>> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It
is
> only >> to >>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
> in >>> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build >> our >>> future together. >>> >>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
> than >>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
in
>> good >>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>> >>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Nicole >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>> [2] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>> >>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has
been
>> pointed >>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Yaroslav >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < > geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the >> one >>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >>> Wikimedia >>>>>> community. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nicole Ebber >>> Adviser International Relations >>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>> https://wikimedia.de >>> >>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der >> Menschheit >>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>> >>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e.
V. >>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
>> unter >>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
für >>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.commailto:geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> wrote: the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.
However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions (I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made. We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.
I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as more general directives or ideas for later future.
best,
dj "pundit"
Dariusz
It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence. Since there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
Jeff
Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations challenging every single part of that intent, in the understanding of the majority of our community, will go through.
It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.
In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up anyhow.
best,
dj
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.commailto:geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> wrote: Dariusz
It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence. Since there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
Jeff
-- ________________________________________________________ [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies) Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/
Ostatnie artykuły:
* Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017) Cultural Diversity of Quality of Information on Wikipediashttp://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68: 10. 2460–2470. * Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits of A-Hierarchical Organizationhttp://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf Journal of Organizational Change Management 29: 3. 361-378. * Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016) Bridging the Gap Between Wikipedia and Academiahttp://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67: 7. 1773-1776. * Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipediahttp://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf Feminist Review 113: 1. 103-108. * Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projectshttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF, PLoS ONE 11: 4. e0152976.
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
" However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions (I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made."
And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than a dozen people?
That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their vote counts for a hundred of yours...".
That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.
Regards,
Todd
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 3:40 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations challenging every single part of that intent, in the understanding of the majority of our community, will go through.
It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.
In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up anyhow.
best,
dj
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.com mailto:geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> wrote: Dariusz
It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence. Since there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
Jeff
-- ________________________________________________________ [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies) Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/
Ostatnie artykuły:
- Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017) Cultural Diversity of
Quality of Information on Wikipedias< http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf%3E Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68: 10. 2460–2470.
- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits
of A-Hierarchical Organization< http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf%3E Journal of Organizational Change Management 29: 3. 361-378.
- Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016) Bridging the Gap Between
Wikipedia and Academia< http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf%3E Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67: 7. 1773-1776.
- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia<
http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf%3E Feminist Review 113: 1. 103-108.
- Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)
Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projects< http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.015..., PLoS ONE 11: 4. e0152976. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.commailto:toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote: Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.
best,
dj
Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being ignored?
When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.
I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have been learned with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local community again.
Has that lesson, at least, been learned?
Todd
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.
best,
dj
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.
There's a different interpretation to those events:
nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned
Maybe I missed somebody, but the only functionary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Functionaries, who resigned was BU Rob13, others were admins and bureaucrats, not functionaries. It's worth noting, that Rob did not resign because of the WMF's office action, but the opposite: the community's response to it. The 22 admins who resigned was ca. 5.4% of the reasonably active admins ("411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more in the year").
Many have returned
Read: Some of those resignations were for the effect. In a superficial check I only found a few, who have actually returned.
WMF backed off
Did it? Fram is still banned, temporary office actions policy consultation is in preparation. I would agree that the WMF is more open to conversation now, which is good.
We lost many of our best to that
That can't be claimed objectively. There was an attempt to measure the activity of the resigned admins: a statistics about number of admin actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_11#Active_admins_and_contributions_from_resigned_admins. It's subjective, how many actions in a year should count as being active. "As a more reasonable bar, there are 411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more in the year". 22/411 = 5.4% of the "active" admins resigned, those who "were responsible for 19423 admin actions or 2.4% of the total". Based on this dataset, the resigned 5.4% of admins made 2.4% of the admin actions in one year. Less than half of the average. This is not representative of the "quality" of an admin, but shows that their resignation was not a major disruption, contrary to how it is dramatized.
I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
something like that again".
"Do better than that" would be the solution oriented lesson to be learned. By better I mean to do a cooperative process. I wonder if that "community", whose opinion you represent, have learned from these recommendations, that there are long-running issues to be solved. It's not only the Foundations' lacking cooperation with the communities, that's under scrutiny here, but also the communities' failure to resolve fundamental issues. There would be no need for intervention, if the communities were able to do this on their own.
What WMF should've learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local community again.
Starting these conversations was a major step forward from the "hamfisted interference" of the framban. Can the community show good faith in response, and cooperatively participate? Many of us did.
Aron
Todd, We can recover from the loss of those admins eventually, but that recovery may be delayed by further blows, and somewhere along the line is the last straw. This may be welcomed by some groups, not so much by others. Otherwise I agree with your point, though do not necessarily agree with the way you express it. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: 25 August 2019 00:22 To: darekj@alk.edu.pl; Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being ignored?
When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.
I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have been learned with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local community again.
Has that lesson, at least, been learned?
Todd
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.
best,
dj
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.
best,
dj
The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
Best regards, Bence
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt írta:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that
a
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
the
discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Bence,
I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence:
"We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate"
which can be opened to any interpretation.
I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by the community because it associates the diversity to the privileges and would justify the paid activities on this basis. Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia structure has been based always on volunteering time, as soon it will be open to paid activities, the sense of participation will be distorted.
Basically, if we would explain to the man of street, why the community should continue to contribute on volunteering basis if some activities are paid? The reason that there are unprivileged members is weak in my opinion.
This is a distortion itself.
On 25/08/2019 12:09, Bence Damokos wrote:
The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
Best regards, Bence
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt írta:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that
a
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
the
discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
There is merit in discussing that recommendation for what it is about (perhaps in a separate thread or on the Meta talk page), but it was not about paid editing.
Best regards, Bence
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, 13:16 Ilario valdelli, valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bence,
I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence:
"We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate"
which can be opened to any interpretation.
I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by the community because it associates the diversity to the privileges and would justify the paid activities on this basis. Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia structure has been based always on volunteering time, as soon it will be open to paid activities, the sense of participation will be distorted.
Basically, if we would explain to the man of street, why the community should continue to contribute on volunteering basis if some activities are paid? The reason that there are unprivileged members is weak in my opinion.
This is a distortion itself.
On 25/08/2019 12:09, Bence Damokos wrote:
The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about
‘paid
editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and
engage
with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
Best regards, Bence
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44)
ezt
írta:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've
been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so
we
get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get
to
deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly
no
paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do
they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point
that
a
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
the
discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening
to
group.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Payment "in kind" is still a form of payment. Now, if it's just talking about expense reimbursement, I'm okay with that (so long as such reimbursement is done uniformly rather than just for certain people), but as far as I know that's already been done for a long time.
But it's still bothersome that, despite the fact that we have begged the WMF for years to come up with a solution to the issue of paid editing, not one of these recommendations addresses that. "Diversity", while certainly a noble goal, cannot be the only goal. Our strategy should primarily focus on the issues we have right now, today, and I do not see one single one of these recommendations addressing paid editing, one of the primary scourges we currently face, in any way whatsoever, and one that would at least arguably make it worse.
Todd
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:09 AM Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
Best regards, Bence
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt írta:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've
been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do
they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point
that
a
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
the
discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening
to
group.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 10:42, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
You appear to be addressing an individual. Your top-posting does not make the addressee clear.
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it,
What, like this?
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Cer...
it was added in June 2014.
we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork,
How's that going, since June 2014?
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
That page says:
"The solutions we are exploring (tentative recommendations) are:
"Payment for ‘necessary services’ to ensure equity in who is able to spend their time being a Wikimedian. We’re thinking about Boards, and other 'functionary' roles (Fund committees, etc.) that require special privilege access to data/tools, and have a 'term' for their role in which they are considered to be on duty (e.g. 2 years), and for which they are personally responsible. We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. Perhaps this will be decided at a local level, e.g. via the Regional Hubs."
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than a dozen people?
Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups with 8-14, members each, say ca. 100 WG members to sum. There are ca. 40 "activists" revolting https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Support against one or more recommendations. Only a few of them made actual, constructive contributions to the discussions. This group is hardly representative of the presumed few thousands interested in the future of the movement.
That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
vote counts for a hundred of yours...".
That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.
It sounds like you are describing WP:Vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. On enwiki we do WP:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus, where the arguments count, not directly the number of contributors. Also, it's questionable, whether the purely negative comments are good-faith contributions, or disruptions, that make it more difficult to focus on finding a solution on common grounds.
On the other hand, Wikimania is over, and the WGs' involvement in the discussions hasn't increased. I hinted on a very optimistic one week turnaround for the WGs, that didn't happen. I expected this would be a likely possibility, in which case it's doubtful that the WGs will be able to produce a recommendation after 15 Sept, that could be accepted as final, or some will lack important details, or carry the unresolved fundamental issues. Even if it happens so, that's also a workable process, or alternatively the Foundation can modify the timeline, when the community response makes it clear, there's need for more iterations.
Aron
Hi Dariusz
in recent years WMF has emphasized the concepts of diversity and equity that are excellent and desirable but should not forget that Wikipedia today is what it is thanks to a community that for over 18 years has supported these projects and that cannot be forgotten from today to tomorrow.
Many recommendations forget this point and forget that Wikimedia projects stand on their feet thanks to this experienced group.
Participating in wikimedia projects is done on a voluntary basis, there are many excellent projects to work with that are out of the wikiverse.
Giving to these volunteers the feeling of not being accepted because they are male, western, middle-aged and with a good economic position will only speed up this process.
Kind regards
On 24/08/2019 23:40, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations challenging every single part of that intent, in the understanding of the majority of our community, will go through.
It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.
In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up anyhow.
best,
dj
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.commailto:geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> wrote: Dariusz
It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence. Since there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
Jeff
-- ________________________________________________________ [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies) Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/
Ostatnie artykuły:
- Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017) Cultural Diversity of Quality of Information on Wikipediashttp://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68: 10. 2460–2470.
- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits of A-Hierarchical Organizationhttp://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf Journal of Organizational Change Management 29: 3. 361-378.
- Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016) Bridging the Gap Between Wikipedia and Academiahttp://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67: 7. 1773-1776.
- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipediahttp://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf Feminist Review 113: 1. 103-108.
- Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016) Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projectshttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF, PLoS ONE 11: 4. e0152976.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This appears to be a reasonable and balanced comment by Dariusz. The recommendations in their current state were opened for discussion and are being discussed. Where commentators have seen problematic issues they have pointed them out. The working groups have in some cases entirely failed to engage with the commentators, which is frustrating to those who are putting in their attention and applying their minds to what they see as problems. Some tend to become more adversarial and strident under these circumstances, other just give up and stop wasting their time. In effect a filter is applied which keeps the most motivated and single minded and possibly some trolls, and deters the more moderate from participation. My take is that this is not the intention, because if it is then the movement is doomed to be taken over by extremists and people with hidden political agendas. Opinions will differ. This is mine Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dariusz Jemielniak Sent: 24 August 2019 23:07 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.commailto:geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> wrote: the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.
However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions (I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made. We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.
I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as more general directives or ideas for later future.
best,
dj "pundit"
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually not working for WMF at all. This is a completely false premise for any discussion.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard
A good point. The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the WMF for free. In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
of
how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
it
is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
some
clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
the
WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
more
effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then
as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to
a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that
great
as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement
suggesting
that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
are
here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the
community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final
Recommendations
implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position. > > James > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Paulo, >> >> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
>> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
just >> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, > expressed >> the opinion >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
>> over >> a much less dramatic change. >> >>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not
be
>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part
of
this >> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide
to
take a >> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so,
you
have
to >> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that
next
step
> when >> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that
you
will
>> return when the time is right. >> >> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < >> paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the
WGs
> 8and >>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around > December. >>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community
will
only > be >>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already
in
the
>>> process of implementation. >>> >>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if
the
>> Wikimedia >>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that
pass
all
> the >>> way till implementation phase. >>> >>> Paulo >>> >>> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia
quinta,
>>> 22/08/2019 >>> à(s) 11:58: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great
seeing
so
> much >>>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building >> our >>>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications. >>>> >>>> DRAFTS >>>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared >> are >>>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete,
but
>> working >>>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
> Some >>>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further > development, >>>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
> few >>>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give >> everyone a >>>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight
into
>> multiple >>>> progress levels. >>>> >>>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values,
priorities
and
>>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A >> recommendation >>> to >>>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just
go
>> through >>> a >>>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into
the
>>> reasoning >>>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what
could
be
>> ways >>> to >>>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest
to
look >> into >>>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included
in
the >>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, > instead >> of >>>> rushing to a quick fix. >>>> >>>> INTEGRATION >>>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
> and >>> via >>>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next >> iteration >>> of >>>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
for >>>> harmonization across working groups. >>>> >>>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
Some
of >> it >>>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
or >>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side
or
>> already >>>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to
be
>>> considered >>>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input >> will >>>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >>>> >>>> TIMELINE >>>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible
and
the
>>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania
participants
could >>> read >>>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
do >>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction > of >>> the >>>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
>> working >>>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
for
>>>> harmonization. >>>> >>>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we
will
> bring >> 3 >>>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a >>> more >>>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported
by
>>>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
>> also >>>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie > D’Costa >>>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) >> to >>>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from
their
work >> and >>>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners >> and >>>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences > on >>> the >>>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as
the
>>>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can >> anticipate >>>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan
for
>>>> implementation. >>>> >>>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
>> them >>> to >>>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need
the
> legal >>>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others >> will >>>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and > structures >>> for >>>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public >>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed >> and >>>> owned across the movement. >>>> >>>> WORKING GROUPS >>>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
> that >>>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures
is
> owned >>> by >>>> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected
by
a
>>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
>> Group >>>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from > different >>>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
>> groups, >>>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia >> Foundation >>>> staff and board. >>>> >>>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being >> volunteers, >>> or >>>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the
draft
>>>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
> storm >>> and >>>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together
across
time >>> zones, >>>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the > substance >>> and >>>> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions
to
> tackle >>> for >>>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The > development >>> of >>>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
> many >>>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings
–
>> included >>>> incorporating community conversations and external expertise.
It
is
>> only >>> to >>>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible >> in >>>> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve
to
> build >>> our >>>> future together. >>>> >>>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
>> than >>>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
in >>> good >>>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>>> >>>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Nicole >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has
been
>>> pointed >>>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Yaroslav >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < > geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < >> geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate
step;
> the >>> one >>>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the
wider
>>>> Wikimedia >>>>>>> community. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> 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> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nicole Ebber >>>> Adviser International Relations >>>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>>> https://wikimedia.de >>>> >>>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen
der
>>> Menschheit >>>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>>> >>>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e. > V. >>>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg >>> unter >>>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
> für >>>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Good point Yaroslav, I agree with you entirely. That is how we who are doing the free work see it. ( I feel reasonably confident that this is a widespread if not universal opinion of neutral editors) The WMF may benefit from our input, but that is not the main point at all. We remain entirely free to vote with our feet. It is up to the board to assess whether net gain or net loss is likely to ensue for each proposal. If they choose options which have a high risk of net loss they fail in their duty. History will judge. A lot of misconception going on. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter Sent: 24 August 2019 23:15 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually not working for WMF at all. This is a completely false premise for any discussion.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard
A good point. The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the WMF for free. In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
of
how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
it
is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
some
clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
the
WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
more
effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then
as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to
a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that
great
as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement
suggesting
that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
are
here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the
community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final
Recommendations
implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position. > > James > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Paulo, >> >> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
>> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
just >> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, > expressed >> the opinion >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
>> over >> a much less dramatic change. >> >>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not
be
>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part
of
this >> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide
to
take a >> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so,
you
have
to >> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that
next
step
> when >> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that
you
will
>> return when the time is right. >> >> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < >> paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the
WGs
> 8and >>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around > December. >>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community
will
only > be >>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already
in
the
>>> process of implementation. >>> >>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if
the
>> Wikimedia >>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that
pass
all
> the >>> way till implementation phase. >>> >>> Paulo >>> >>> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia
quinta,
>>> 22/08/2019 >>> à(s) 11:58: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great
seeing
so
> much >>>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building >> our >>>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications. >>>> >>>> DRAFTS >>>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared >> are >>>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete,
but
>> working >>>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
> Some >>>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further > development, >>>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
> few >>>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give >> everyone a >>>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight
into
>> multiple >>>> progress levels. >>>> >>>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values,
priorities
and
>>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A >> recommendation >>> to >>>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just
go
>> through >>> a >>>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into
the
>>> reasoning >>>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what
could
be
>> ways >>> to >>>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest
to
look >> into >>>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included
in
the >>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, > instead >> of >>>> rushing to a quick fix. >>>> >>>> INTEGRATION >>>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
> and >>> via >>>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next >> iteration >>> of >>>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
for >>>> harmonization across working groups. >>>> >>>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
Some
of >> it >>>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
or >>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side
or
>> already >>>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to
be
>>> considered >>>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input >> will >>>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >>>> >>>> TIMELINE >>>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible
and
the
>>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania
participants
could >>> read >>>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
do >>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction > of >>> the >>>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
>> working >>>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
for
>>>> harmonization. >>>> >>>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we
will
> bring >> 3 >>>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a >>> more >>>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported
by
>>>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
>> also >>>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie > D’Costa >>>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) >> to >>>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from
their
work >> and >>>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners >> and >>>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences > on >>> the >>>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as
the
>>>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can >> anticipate >>>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan
for
>>>> implementation. >>>> >>>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
>> them >>> to >>>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need
the
> legal >>>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others >> will >>>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and > structures >>> for >>>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public >>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed >> and >>>> owned across the movement. >>>> >>>> WORKING GROUPS >>>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
> that >>>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures
is
> owned >>> by >>>> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected
by
a
>>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
>> Group >>>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from > different >>>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
>> groups, >>>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia >> Foundation >>>> staff and board. >>>> >>>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being >> volunteers, >>> or >>>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the
draft
>>>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
> storm >>> and >>>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together
across
time >>> zones, >>>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the > substance >>> and >>>> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions
to
> tackle >>> for >>>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The > development >>> of >>>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
> many >>>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings
–
>> included >>>> incorporating community conversations and external expertise.
It
is
>> only >>> to >>>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible >> in >>>> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve
to
> build >>> our >>>> future together. >>>> >>>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
>> than >>>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
in >>> good >>>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>>> >>>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Nicole >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has
been
>>> pointed >>>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Yaroslav >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < > geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < >> geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate
step;
> the >>> one >>>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the
wider
>>>> Wikimedia >>>>>>> community. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> 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> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nicole Ebber >>>> Adviser International Relations >>>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>>> https://wikimedia.de >>>> >>>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen
der
>>> Menschheit >>>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>>> >>>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e. > V. >>>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg >>> unter >>>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
> für >>>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, Research on the acquisition of new volunteers shows that most new people drop out because of perceived hostility. This excercise of formulating a strategy for 2030 aims to address this among other objectives. It follows that when new volunteers that stick is an important objective, the status quo cannot be maintained. When people threaten to leave because the status quo, their power base is threatened, they are welcome to take a leave of absence and as Jan-Bart said in them days we hope they will reconsider.
Mind you, I am not a fan-boy of the new strategy. I was in Stockholm and I made several points where I think the strategy fails.
The problem that I have with "advocates for the community" is that like lawyers they do not necessarily self include and certainly take no responsiblity. Their point would be more clear when they say "I will leave our community because... ". Our community will be better off when some bad apples but "pillars of the community" leave. Our community would be better off when we argue in stead of state opinions. Let's be on point and to the point. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:39, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard
A good point. The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the WMF for free. In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
of
how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
it
is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
some
clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
the
WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
more
effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then
as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to
a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that
great
as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement
suggesting
that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
are
here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the
community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final
Recommendations
implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position. > > James > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Paulo, >> >> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
>> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
just >> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, > expressed >> the opinion >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
>> over >> a much less dramatic change. >> >>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not
be
>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part
of
this >> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide
to
take a >> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so,
you
have
to >> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that
next
step
> when >> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that
you
will
>> return when the time is right. >> >> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < >> paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the
WGs
> 8and >>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around > December. >>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community
will
only > be >>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already
in
the
>>> process of implementation. >>> >>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if
the
>> Wikimedia >>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that
pass
all
> the >>> way till implementation phase. >>> >>> Paulo >>> >>> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia
quinta,
>>> 22/08/2019 >>> à(s) 11:58: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great
seeing
so
> much >>>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building >> our >>>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications. >>>> >>>> DRAFTS >>>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared >> are >>>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete,
but
>> working >>>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
> Some >>>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further > development, >>>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
> few >>>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give >> everyone a >>>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight
into
>> multiple >>>> progress levels. >>>> >>>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values,
priorities
and
>>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A >> recommendation >>> to >>>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just
go
>> through >>> a >>>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into
the
>>> reasoning >>>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what
could
be
>> ways >>> to >>>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest
to
look >> into >>>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included
in
the >>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, > instead >> of >>>> rushing to a quick fix. >>>> >>>> INTEGRATION >>>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
> and >>> via >>>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next >> iteration >>> of >>>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
for >>>> harmonization across working groups. >>>> >>>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
Some
of >> it >>>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
or >>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side
or
>> already >>>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to
be
>>> considered >>>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input >> will >>>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >>>> >>>> TIMELINE >>>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible
and
the
>>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania
participants
could >>> read >>>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
do >>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction > of >>> the >>>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
>> working >>>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
for
>>>> harmonization. >>>> >>>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we
will
> bring >> 3 >>>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a >>> more >>>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported
by
>>>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
>> also >>>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie > D’Costa >>>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) >> to >>>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from
their
work >> and >>>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners >> and >>>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences > on >>> the >>>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as
the
>>>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can >> anticipate >>>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan
for
>>>> implementation. >>>> >>>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
>> them >>> to >>>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need
the
> legal >>>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others >> will >>>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and > structures >>> for >>>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public >>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed >> and >>>> owned across the movement. >>>> >>>> WORKING GROUPS >>>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
> that >>>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures
is
> owned >>> by >>>> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected
by
a
>>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
>> Group >>>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from > different >>>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
>> groups, >>>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia >> Foundation >>>> staff and board. >>>> >>>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being >> volunteers, >>> or >>>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the
draft
>>>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
> storm >>> and >>>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together
across
time >>> zones, >>>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the > substance >>> and >>>> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions
to
> tackle >>> for >>>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The > development >>> of >>>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
> many >>>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings
–
>> included >>>> incorporating community conversations and external expertise.
It
is
>> only >>> to >>>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible >> in >>>> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve
to
> build >>> our >>>> future together. >>>> >>>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
>> than >>>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
in >>> good >>>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>>> >>>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Nicole >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has
been
>>> pointed >>>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Yaroslav >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < > geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < >> geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate
step;
> the >>> one >>>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the
wider
>>>> Wikimedia >>>>>>> community. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> 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> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nicole Ebber >>>> Adviser International Relations >>>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>>> https://wikimedia.de >>>> >>>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen
der
>>> Menschheit >>>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>>> >>>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e. > V. >>>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg >>> unter >>>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
> für >>>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Gerard, Katherine and Wikimedians,
Am wondering if the Wikimedia Foundation is in Google for NonProfits which is holding an online training for managing volunteers on September 10th - https://events.withgoogle.com/google-for-nonprofits-live-stream-series/.
(WUaS is in Google for Nonprofits and is attending this).
Scott Scott_WUaS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_WorldUnivAndSch
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:48 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Research on the acquisition of new volunteers shows that most new people drop out because of perceived hostility. This excercise of formulating a strategy for 2030 aims to address this among other objectives. It follows that when new volunteers that stick is an important objective, the status quo cannot be maintained. When people threaten to leave because the status quo, their power base is threatened, they are welcome to take a leave of absence and as Jan-Bart said in them days we hope they will reconsider.
Mind you, I am not a fan-boy of the new strategy. I was in Stockholm and I made several points where I think the strategy fails.
The problem that I have with "advocates for the community" is that like lawyers they do not necessarily self include and certainly take no responsiblity. Their point would be more clear when they say "I will leave our community because... ". Our community will be better off when some bad apples but "pillars of the community" leave. Our community would be better off when we argue in stead of state opinions. Let's be on point and to the point. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:39, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard
A good point. The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of
all
those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the WMF for free. In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found
on
the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased
in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that
after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion
that
the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the
arbiter
of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia
Foundation
is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they
are
not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they
are
in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where
and
when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
of
how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
it
is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
some
clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
the
WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
more
effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
are
here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the
Wikimedia
community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many
distinct
opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there
is a
sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense
then
as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up
to
a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that
great
as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement
suggesting
that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations
are
here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the
community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a
group
position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
> James > > Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify
the
Board's
> position on whether it is prepared to see the final
Recommendations
> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community? > > Jeff > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position. >> >> James >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >> >>> Paulo, >>> >>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
>>> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
> just >>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF
Board,
>> expressed >>> the opinion >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
>>> over >>> a much less dramatic change. >>> >>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not
be
>>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a
part
of
> this >>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you
decide
to
> take a >>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so,
you
have
> to >>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that
next
step
>> when >>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that
you
will
>>> return when the time is right. >>> >>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < >>> paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by
the
WGs
>> 8and >>>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT
around
>> December. >>>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community
will
> only >> be >>>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are
already
in
the
>>>> process of implementation. >>>> >>>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if
the
>>> Wikimedia >>>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that
pass
all
>> the >>>> way till implementation phase. >>>> >>>> Paulo >>>> >>>> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia
quinta,
>>>> 22/08/2019 >>>> à(s) 11:58: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great
seeing
so
>> much >>>>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for > building >>> our >>>>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and > clarifications. >>>>> >>>>> DRAFTS >>>>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we
recently
> shared >>> are >>>>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete,
but
>>> working >>>>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
>> Some >>>>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further >> development, >>>>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over
the
next
>> few >>>>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to
give
>>> everyone a >>>>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight
into
>>> multiple >>>>> progress levels. >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values,
priorities
and
>>>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A >>> recommendation >>>> to >>>>> change the existing license model, for example, will not
just
go
>>> through >>>> a >>>>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration
into
the
>>>> reasoning >>>>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what
could
be
>>> ways >>>> to >>>>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest
to
> look >>> into >>>>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is
included
in
> the >>>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further
consultation,
>> instead >>> of >>>>> rushing to a quick fix. >>>>> >>>>> INTEGRATION >>>>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
>> and >>>> via >>>>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the
next
>>> iteration >>>> of >>>>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
> for >>>>> harmonization across working groups. >>>>> >>>>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different
levels.
Some
> of >>> it >>>>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
> or >>>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic
side
or
>>> already >>>>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to
be
>>>> considered >>>>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations.
Programmatic
> input >>> will >>>>> be documented and taken forward to inform the
implementation.
>>>>> >>>>> TIMELINE >>>>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible
and
the
>>>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania
participants
> could >>>> read >>>>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
> do >>>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall > direction >> of >>>> the >>>>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
>>> working >>>>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to
prepare
for
>>>>> harmonization. >>>>> >>>>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we
will
>> bring >>> 3 >>>>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to > develop a >>>> more >>>>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported
by
>>>>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team.
We
have
>>> also >>>>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley,
Valerie
>> D’Costa >>>>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia > Deutschland) >>> to >>>>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from
their
> work >>> and >>>>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active > listeners >>> and >>>>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and > consequences >> on >>>> the >>>>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as
the
>>>>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>>>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they
can
>>> anticipate >>>>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan
for
>>>>> implementation. >>>>> >>>>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
>>> them >>>> to >>>>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need
the
>> legal >>>>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations,
while
> others >>> will >>>>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and >> structures >>>> for >>>>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be
additional
> public >>>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be > discussed >>> and >>>>> owned across the movement. >>>>> >>>>> WORKING GROUPS >>>>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
>> that >>>>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement
structures
is
>> owned >>>> by >>>>> the community. Members of the nine working group were
selected
by
a
>>>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
>>> Group >>>>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from >> different >>>>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
>>> groups, >>>>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl.
Wikimedia
>>> Foundation >>>>> staff and board. >>>>> >>>>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being >>> volunteers, >>>> or >>>>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the
draft
>>>>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
>> storm >>>> and >>>>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together
across
> time >>>> zones, >>>>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the >> substance >>>> and >>>>> identified the scope of their work and the specific
questions
to
>> tackle >>>> for >>>>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The >> development >>>> of >>>>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
>> many >>>>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person
meetings
–
>>> included >>>>> incorporating community conversations and external
expertise.
It
is
>>> only >>>> to >>>>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something > tangible >>> in >>>>> front of us that we can all react to and help further
improve
to
>> build >>>> our >>>>> future together. >>>>> >>>>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
>>> than >>>>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
> in >>>> good >>>>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> Nicole >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which
has
been
>>>> pointed >>>>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Yaroslav >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < >> geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>>>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < >>> geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of
the
>>>>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate
step;
>> the >>>> one >>>>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the
wider
>>>>> Wikimedia >>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
>>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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
and
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> 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> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Nicole Ebber >>>>> Adviser International Relations >>>>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>>>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>>>> https://wikimedia.de >>>>> >>>>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen
der
>>>> Menschheit >>>>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
dabei!
>>>>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>>>> >>>>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
> e. >> V. >>>>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts > Berlin-Charlottenburg >>>> unter >>>>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
>> für >>>>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> 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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Gerard, My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was not defined by me, so why do you not address your question to the person who brought it up? (Benjamin) Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware of my own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my opinions offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not stated. It is entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have never claimed that they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had mixed success in its endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating with English Wikipedia on some aspects of trust and safety, policy and software changes is a thing they have not done well. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. I will give your opinion the consideration it deserves when it is explained logically, politely, and referring to verifiable facts. The farcical state of some elected governments and the irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to me, as I live in a state where the elected government has continuously failed to deliver on their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the way, other countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not relieve other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being appointed to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility to do due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to avoid where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable confidence that the board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the ability of some of the working groups to come up with workable solutions to the various problems of the various projects. There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered change that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of measures which includes poorly considered and poorly articulated recommendations that have been put together by people who do not appear to wish to communicate with those who will be affected by their recommendations. Here are some friendly suggestions: Please read my words carefully and try to understand my points, and refrain from assigning motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed them for myself, or when they are based on the words of other people. Make sure you are addressing the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. Do not put words into my mouth. Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment, it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken, fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that
just
five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
expressed
the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
over a much less dramatic change.
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
this
next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
have
to
let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
step
when
needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
the
> process of implementation. > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
all
the
> way till implementation phase. > > Paulo > > Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, > 22/08/2019 > à(s) 11:58: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
our >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>> >> DRAFTS >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
are >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a >> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple >> progress levels. >> >> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities
and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation > to >> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through > a >> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the > reasoning >> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could
be
ways > to >> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
into >> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
instead
of >> rushing to a quick fix. >> >> INTEGRATION >> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
and
> via >> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration > of >> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
for
>> harmonization across working groups. >> >> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
of
it >> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
or
>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already >> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be > considered >> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
will >> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >> >> TIMELINE >> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and
the
>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
> read >> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will
do
>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of
> the >> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working >> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for >> harmonization. >> >> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will
bring
3 >> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
> more >> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
also >> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
D’Costa
>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
to >> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
and >> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
and >> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on
> the >> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate >> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >> implementation. >> >> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
them > to >> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the
legal
>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
will >> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
structures
> for >> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
and >> owned across the movement. >> >> WORKING GROUPS >> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process
that
>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is
owned
> by >> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by
a
>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
Group >> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from
different
>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, >> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation >> staff and board. >> >> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, > or >> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form,
storm
> and >> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
> zones, >> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the
substance
> and >> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to
tackle
> for >> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The
development
> of >> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from
many
>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included >> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It
is
only > to >> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
in >> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to
build
> our >> future together. >> >> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
than >> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute
in
> good >> faith, and in a constructive way. >> >> Let me know if you have further questions. >> >> Best wishes, >> Nicole >> >> [1] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>> [2] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been > pointed >>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>> >>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step;
the
> one >>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >> Wikimedia >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>> ? >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> 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>
>> >> >> >> -- >> Nicole Ebber >> Adviser International Relations >> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >> https://wikimedia.de >> >> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der > Menschheit >> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter >> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, When you are not answerable for the mails you send, I might agree. I do not put words in your mouth, you were quite capable of doing that yourself. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:02, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Gerard, My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was not defined by me, so why do you not address your question to the person who brought it up? (Benjamin) Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware of my own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my opinions offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not stated. It is entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have never claimed that they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had mixed success in its endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating with English Wikipedia on some aspects of trust and safety, policy and software changes is a thing they have not done well. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. I will give your opinion the consideration it deserves when it is explained logically, politely, and referring to verifiable facts. The farcical state of some elected governments and the irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to me, as I live in a state where the elected government has continuously failed to deliver on their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the way, other countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not relieve other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being appointed to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility to do due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to avoid where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable confidence that the board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the ability of some of the working groups to come up with workable solutions to the various problems of the various projects. There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered change that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of measures which includes poorly considered and poorly articulated recommendations that have been put together by people who do not appear to wish to communicate with those who will be affected by their recommendations. Here are some friendly suggestions: Please read my words carefully and try to understand my points, and refrain from assigning motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed them for myself, or when they are based on the words of other people. Make sure you are addressing the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. Do not put words into my mouth. Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Paulo, > > You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
just
> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed > the opinion > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
> over > a much less dramatic change. > >> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be > acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part
of
this
> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
have
to
> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
step
when > needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
> return when the time is right. > > I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. > > Jeff > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the
WGs
8and >> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. >> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be >> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
the
>> process of implementation. >> >> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the > Wikimedia >> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
all
the >> way till implementation phase. >> >> Paulo >> >> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, >> 22/08/2019 >> à(s) 11:58: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing
so
much >>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
> our >>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>>> >>> DRAFTS >>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
> are >>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but > working >>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
Some >>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, >>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
few >>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give > everyone a >>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into > multiple >>> progress levels. >>> >>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities
and
>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A > recommendation >> to >>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go > through >> a >>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into
the
>> reasoning >>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could
be
> ways >> to >>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
> into >>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead > of >>> rushing to a quick fix. >>> >>> INTEGRATION >>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
and >> via >>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next > iteration >> of >>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
for
>>> harmonization across working groups. >>> >>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
Some
of
> it >>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
or
>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or > already >>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be >> considered >>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
> will >>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >>> >>> TIMELINE >>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and
the
>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
>> read >>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
do
>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of >> the >>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
> working >>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
for
>>> harmonization. >>> >>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring > 3 >>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
>> more >>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
> also >>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa >>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
> to >>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
> and >>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
> and >>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on >> the >>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can > anticipate >>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >>> implementation. >>> >>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
> them >> to >>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal >>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
> will >>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures >> for >>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
> and >>> owned across the movement. >>> >>> WORKING GROUPS >>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
that >>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures
is
owned >> by >>> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected
by
a
>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
> Group >>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different >>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
> groups, >>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia > Foundation >>> staff and board. >>> >>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being > volunteers, >> or >>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
storm >> and >>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
>> zones, >>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance >> and >>> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle >> for >>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development >> of >>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
many >>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – > included >>> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It
is
> only >> to >>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
> in >>> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build >> our >>> future together. >>> >>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
> than >>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
in
>> good >>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>> >>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Nicole >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>> [2] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>> >>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has
been
>> pointed >>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Yaroslav >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < > geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the >> one >>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >>> Wikimedia >>>>>> community. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nicole Ebber >>> Adviser International Relations >>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>> https://wikimedia.de >>> >>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der >> Menschheit >>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>> >>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e.
V. >>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
>> unter >>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
für >>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
" Only some of the board members are elected by the community." - and the others are appointed by those who are elected by the community. OK, it's not entirely direct democracy, but still democracy.
Paulo
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 24/08/2019 à(s) 19:10:
Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are not beholden to you nor me.
"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and when.
Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change, consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of how we could improve upon them. Thanks GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some clarification would be welcome. English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
recommendations
of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
made.
In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great as an abstraction. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Benjamin, Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the board might overrule the community in this matter? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community
in
such a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time.
J
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
James
Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
Board's
position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Paulo, > > You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
community
> does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall
that
just
> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed > the opinion > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
> over > a much less dramatic change. > >> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be > acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part
of
this
> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
take a
> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
have
to
> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
step
when > needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
will
> return when the time is right. > > I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today. > > Jeff > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the
Wikimedia
>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the
WGs
8and >> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. >> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
only
be >> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
the
>> process of implementation. >> >> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the > Wikimedia >> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
all
the >> way till implementation phase. >> >> Paulo >> >> Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, >> 22/08/2019 >> à(s) 11:58: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing
so
much >>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
building
> our >>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
clarifications.
>>> >>> DRAFTS >>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
shared
> are >>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but > working >>> documents that are currently being refined by the working
groups.
Some >>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, >>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the
next
few >>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give > everyone a >>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into > multiple >>> progress levels. >>> >>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities
and
>>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A > recommendation >> to >>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go > through >> a >>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into
the
>> reasoning >>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could
be
> ways >> to >>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
look
> into >>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
the
>>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead > of >>> rushing to a quick fix. >>> >>> INTEGRATION >>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
Wikimania
and >> via >>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next > iteration >> of >>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
basis
for
>>> harmonization across working groups. >>> >>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
Some
of
> it >>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
principles
or
>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or > already >>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be >> considered >>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
input
> will >>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation. >>> >>> TIMELINE >>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and
the
>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants
could
>> read >>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
will
do
>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
multiple
>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
direction
of >> the >>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
already
> working >>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
for
>>> harmonization. >>> >>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring > 3 >>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
develop a
>> more >>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by >>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
have
> also >>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa >>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
Deutschland)
> to >>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their
work
> and >>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
listeners
> and >>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
consequences
on >> the >>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the >>> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the >>> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can > anticipate >>> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for >>> implementation. >>> >>> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and
present
> them >> to >>> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal >>> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while
others
> will >>> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures >> for >>> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional
public
>>> consultation activities around implementation that will be
discussed
> and >>> owned across the movement. >>> >>> WORKING GROUPS >>> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the
process
that >>> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures
is
owned >> by >>> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected
by
a
>>> steering committee and the groups were established in July
2019.[2]
> Group >>> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different >>> regions and languages, from individual contributors and
organized
> groups, >>> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia > Foundation >>> staff and board. >>> >>> The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being > volunteers, >> or >>> doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft >>> recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to
form,
storm >> and >>> norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across
time
>> zones, >>> languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance >> and >>> identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle >> for >>> us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development >> of >>> recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside
from
many >>> online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – > included >>> incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It
is
> only >> to >>> the hard work of these groups that we finally have something
tangible
> in >>> front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build >> our >>> future together. >>> >>> Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them,
rather
> than >>> rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please
contribute
in
>> good >>> faith, and in a constructive way. >>> >>> Let me know if you have further questions. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Nicole >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
>>> [2] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
>>> >>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has
been
>> pointed >>>> out by multiple people from the very beginning) >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Yaroslav >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke < geoffey.hawke@gmail.com >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett < >>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke < > geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>>>>>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the >> one >>>>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider >>> Wikimedia >>>>>> community. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That step is not mentioned at >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
>>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nicole Ebber >>> Adviser International Relations >>> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy >>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
>>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 >>> https://wikimedia.de >>> >>> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der >> Menschheit >>> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>> https://spenden.wikimedia.de >>> >>> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e.
V. >>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
>> unter >>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt
für >>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> 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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Except that this time they don't "hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution", since Wikimedia community input ceases around 15 September in what has been constantly defined as a very preliminary draft, with very low to null engagement from the WGs, and next time we'll see that, it will be already the finished product under deployment.
Not good.
Paulo
Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 23/08/2019 à(s) 11:40:
Paulo,
You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed the opinion
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am... over a much less dramatic change.
All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to take a wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have to let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step when needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will return when the time is right.
I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the process of implementation.
It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
Wikimedia
community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all the way till implementation phase.
Paulo
Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de escreveu no dia quinta, 22/08/2019 à(s) 11:58:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building
our
future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared
are
recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
working
documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
everyone a
full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
multiple
progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
recommendation
to
change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
through
a
quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
reasoning
behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
ways
to
mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look
into
different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead
of
rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and
via
different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
iteration
of
their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of
it
targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
already
addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be
considered
in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input
will
be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could
read
and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of
the
recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already
working
on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring
3
representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a
more
coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have
also
invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland)
to
the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work
and
leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners
and
can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on
the
organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can
anticipate
any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present
them
to
the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures
for
approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed
and
owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned
by
the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2]
Group
members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized
groups,
and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia
Foundation
staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being
volunteers,
or
doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm
and
norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time
zones,
languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance
and
identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle
for
us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development
of
recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings –
included
incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is
only
to
the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible
in
front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build
our
future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather
than
rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in
good
faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been
pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Nicole,
You say that the harmonisation sprint will take place in Tunis. Why was it decided to hold the sprint in a country in which ihomosexuality is illegal, as are sexual relations outside marriage. Is this going to be a safe space for such community members?
Jeff
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:58 AM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear all,
Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development, others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple progress levels.
I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of rushing to a quick fix.
INTEGRATION The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for harmonization across working groups.
The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be considered in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
TIMELINE We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for harmonization.
At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3 representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the organizational and movement level. They also participate as the representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for implementation.
Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and owned across the movement.
WORKING GROUPS We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups, and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation staff and board.
The groups are doing an amazing job. With many of them being volunteers, or doing this work on top of their regular jobs, creating the draft recommendations is a huge achievement. They first needed to form, storm and norm as a group and figure out how to best work together across time zones, languages, and contexts. They then took a deep dive into the substance and identified the scope of their work and the specific questions to tackle for us as a movement to advance in our strategic direction. The development of recommendations has started in spring this year, and – aside from many online calls, asynchronous work and scarce in-person meetings – included incorporating community conversations and external expertise. It is only to the hard work of these groups that we finally have something tangible in front of us that we can all react to and help further improve to build our future together.
Please join us in thanking, celebrating and supporting them, rather than rushing to conclusions or arguing over details. Please contribute in good faith, and in a constructive way.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Best wishes, Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 13:13, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed out by multiple people from the very beginning)
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
Andy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
That step is not mentioned at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia community.
That step is not mentioned at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Hi Andy,
Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be). If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I suggest using their mailing list : wg2030-diversity@wikimedia.org
Best, Diane (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent... ?
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent... ?
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:19, Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
Thank you, but in the email to which you replied, I was referring not to a WG recommendation, but to the FAQ (URL above), which is clearly at odds with the process as stated in Nicole's email.
I shall look forward to reviewing the revised recommendations.
Hi Diane,
If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in her messages? I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion with the community takes place.
Best, Paulo
Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia sexta, 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
Hi Andy,
Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be). If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I suggest using their mailing list : wg2030-diversity@wikimedia.org
Best, Diane (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
< https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board] will then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and in public.
Todd
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Diane,
If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in her messages? I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion with the community takes place.
Best, Paulo
Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia sexta, 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
Hi Andy,
Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be). If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
suggest
using their mailing list : wg2030-diversity@wikimedia.org
Best, Diane (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
<
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
community.
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Could we have a formal RfC already, please?
On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and in public.
Todd
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Diane,
If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in her messages? I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion with the community takes place.
Best, Paulo
Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia sexta, 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
Hi Andy,
Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be). If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
suggest
using their mailing list : wg2030-diversity@wikimedia.org
Best, Diane (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
<
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
> community. >
That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Hi Paulo,
As far as I know, the new discussion will happen *after* the harmonization sprint, and will be about the new set of recommendations that comes out of it.
Best, Diane
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Could we have a formal RfC already, please?
On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to
push
discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and in public.
Todd
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Diane,
If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole
in
her messages? I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new
discussion
with the community takes place.
Best, Paulo
Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia sexta, 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
Hi Andy,
Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that
will
soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be). If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
suggest
using their mailing list : wg2030-diversity@wikimedia.org
Best, Diane (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
<
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm...
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
geoffey.hawke@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >>> the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the >>> recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF >> >> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
one
>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
Wikimedia
>> community. >> > > That step is not mentioned at >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequent...
?
In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
will
then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for approval or further consultation."
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Many Wikimedians have left detailed and logical feedback on the Meta talk pages, as per the request for feedback by Nicole Ebber.
No doubt there is no requirement to keep on making this same feedback in other places, especially where not part of the planned feedback process, or where the rationale includes presuming a commonly understood "current governance model" which is not, apparently, defined. Neither is it realistic to expect volunteers like Wikipedians to want to research and critique governance models such as "Buurtzorg" which is designed for healthcare, and as far as anyone can tell have never been applied for open knowledge projects entirely underpinned by unpaid volunteers, especially when there is an absence of context, such as the "Charter" which is supposed to drive the entire model.
The specific feedback already given on Meta, cannot be reproduced in the highly hypothetical survey, it's like trying to write on a blackboard with cheese straws.
Thanks
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 18:01, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not being published at the same time as our recommendations.)
While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed comments.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Thanks,
Chris Keating User:The Land
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the future of our movement.
Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to research the movement, analyze community input shared via community conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction. They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of future we want to create together.
The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage, your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And of course, always critically question whether these recommendations support the strategic direction.
There are a few ways to do this:
- Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
directly on Meta. [2]
- If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
- Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
- Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
Best wishes,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen... [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/C...
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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@lists.wikimedia.org