Let's see what we've got here:
A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director" who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last, you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to fail.
Marc Riddell
on 10/20/10 12:44 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at vam@fct.unl.pt wrote:
Brigitte,
I agree with you. You raised some very good points.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
At 03:47 20-10-2010, you wrote:
________________________________ From: Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote: > If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was > banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled? Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation for the better part of the past yearnamely, that he was completely unable tto keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than constructive discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally acceptable. We really are very liberal about thisotheerwise you wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months. I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was retaliatory. I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this list. I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far. It is not about defending anyone but about the fact that the "I know bannable when I see it" theory of moderation is unconstructive and leads to dramafests. The next ban is the one that will likely cause a real flame war. I suspect *more* people would be on moderation if any sort of objective criteria were being used. The lack of explanation over this bothers me so much because I suspect that you *can't* explain it. It seems to be the sort of gut-shot that hasn't been thought through. Moderate more people based on real criteria, rather than how you feel about them. Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi,
I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small correction:
Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
Let's see what we've got here:
A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
Greg has a long, unmitigated and unambiguous record of trolling, spamming, harassment, and abuse. Revoking his access to WMF resources in yet another instance was entirely correct and appropriate, although arguably it should have happened much sooner and more consistently. As Fred pointed out here just a few days ago, most recently, Greg openly solicited bids from "web manipulators" whom he intends to pay to post pre-written negative comments to news stories about Wikipedia, with a very clearly stated motive to drive traffic to his revenue-generating sites.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061616.html
Thanks to the list mods for making the call. I appreciate that people seek for our organization and our projects to aspire to such a high standard of ethical behavior that even clearly unethical and profit-driven behavior and trolling is seen by some to fall within the tolerable norm, as long as it occasionally draws attention to issues that may merit discussion, no matter how much time and energy is wasted, and how much shit is thrown. That's not a principle that has ever applied to Wikimedia projects, however. If you miss Greg, you know where to find him, and I'm sure he'll return here frequently with throwaway email accounts as well.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org wrote:
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation running for a while even if no one donated a penny.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..0.... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..09General_Powers.
On 20 October 2010 15:59, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..0... . < http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..0... .>
--
Ummm. The board has 10 members, of whom 3 are selected by the community at large, and 2 are selected from the tiny segment of the community who act as representatives of chapters. The remainder of the current 10 seats, including the Founder seat, are filled by the selection of the board itself. The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that.
Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board majority.
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that.
Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board majority.
Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to revoke their representation.
Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the definition of "community member") are members of chapters. I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
Risker/Anne
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that.
Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board majority.
Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to revoke their representation.
Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the definition of "community member") are members of chapters. I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
The "chapters vs open community" question is entirely valid - however, they're clearly from outside "The Foundation" and from "The Community" writ large.
If it's felt that the chapters as an intermediary organizational role aren't helpfully representing the wider community interests, then we can more widely revisit if that's an appropriate or reasonable way to elect those board members.
I am unconvinced that we have an actual problem here, but it's entirely appropriate and on topic for Foundation-L to discuss this.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:22 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
.. I am unconvinced that we have an actual problem [with chapter seats], but it's entirely appropriate and on topic for Foundation-L to discuss this.
fwiw, here are the two amendments.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_s...
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendment_February_201...
was there discussion on foundation-l before those resolutions?
-- John Vandenberg
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
.... I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
I agree with your premise here, however, chapter board members are elected by their membership (afaik, that occurs in all chapters), so their membership has the obvious recourse of electing someone else.
The process of Chapter-selected Trustees should be transparent, requiring that each chapter reports its vote either publicly or to their respective members. This may already be happening, but my vague memory from the last round of Chapter-selected Trustees suggests that this needs to be reviewed.
-- John Vandenberg
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
.... I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
I agree with your premise here, however, chapter board members are elected by their membership (afaik, that occurs in all chapters), so their membership has the obvious recourse of electing someone else.
Hardly. I don't know what my chapter's opinion was in selecting the chapter-selected members, I don't know who from the board members did anything about it anyway, and besides the board has been chosen for other things they're good at than selecting board members.
So if I don't agree with the chapter-selected board members, my recourse is to vote down board members of my own chapter that may or may not have been involved in the choice of my chapter to support or not support that board member, disregarding other, probably more important factors to choose that chapter board member. Doesn't sound to me like a very high of accountability to me or other chapter members...
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
.... I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
I agree with your premise here, however, chapter board members are elected by their membership (afaik, that occurs in all chapters), so their membership has the obvious recourse of electing someone else.
Hardly. I don't know what my chapter's opinion was in selecting the chapter-selected members, I don't know who from the board members did anything about it anyway, and besides the board has been chosen for other things they're good at than selecting board members.
So if I don't agree with the chapter-selected board members, my recourse is to vote down board members of my own chapter that may or may not have been involved in the choice of my chapter to support or not support that board member, disregarding other, probably more important factors to choose that chapter board member. Doesn't sound to me like a very high of accountability to me or other chapter members...
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
So, uh, maybe I haven't been reading F-l as closely as I should have been, but this seems to have come out of nowhere, in response to a thread from October? Did I miss something?
At any rate, if you or others would like to talk about the chapter-selected board members (of which I am one) I'd be glad to do so, but let's start a new thread -- this is confusing, as I'm pretty sure it doesn't have much of anything to do with Kohs/Damian.
-- phoebe
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
Not really...there's subsection (A), which is pretty broad. And then, there's Section 8: "Any Trustee may be removed by a majority vote of the full membership of the Board." And of course, "These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at such meeting."
Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the announcement on Foundation-l earlier).
Steven Walling
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
Not really...there's subsection (A), which is pretty broad. And then, there's Section 8: "Any Trustee may be removed by a majority vote of the full membership of the Board." And of course, "These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at such meeting."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the announcement on Foundation-l earlier).
If this is the IRC meeting listed here, it is 1700 UTC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
..which is 4am in my neck of the woods.
-- John Vandenberg
Steven Walling wrote:
Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the announcement on Foundation-l earlier).
For Christ's sake, another channel?
MZMcBride
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:44 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the announcement on Foundation-l earlier).
For Christ's sake, another channel?
Of course! It was pointed out earlier today that we probably need #wikimedia-irc-channels to coordinate the creation of new channels ;-)
-Chad
(PS: I suggested creating a new wiki for it :p)
Hoi, If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role, I would not have stood for election.
As to finances, "stashed away" suggests that you consider the financial reporting and the transparency not adequate. When you consider the expenditure on hardware, bandwidth and salary only for operational needs and when you compare that with any of the websites that are of similar size, you will find that the WMF operation is ultra efficient.
As you know, the WMF does more then just running operations, this gets paid as you can find in the facts that have been reported. If in addition to all this there is all this cash hidden away, then it is really amazing. There are indications how this is possible; Danese for instance indicated that she is working hard to minimise the amount needed for the new computer centre. Only the "right" people are hired. Given the speed of the staff, it is crucial to work hard at getting the right people in. As this takes more time then often desired, money is saved.
The numbers of our chapters are growing, the numbers of our projects is growing. We have a strategy, we do important work together. No, not everything is how I like. I however aim to be a part of the solution and this motivates me to blog, to help out, to stand for election. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 October 2010 21:32, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org wrote:
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation running for a while even if no one donated a penny.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role, I would not have stood for election.
Right, well, you should have paid more attention when the community was stripped of their membership in the WMF, then (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756).
As to finances, "stashed away" suggests that you consider the financial reporting and the transparency not adequate.
You misunderstood. The financial reports are where I found out that the money is being stashed away.
Can you explain your statement more? Since only one or three seats are selected by the community out of nine(depending on your definition of community)?
________________________________ From: Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 9:05:11 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
Hi,
I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small correction:
Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
Let's see what we've got here:
A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
I thought it was 3 or 5 out of nine (depending on your definition of community).
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/20/10 3:44 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Can you explain your statement more? Since only one or three seats are selected by the community out of nine(depending on your definition of community)?
From: Guillaume Paumiergpaumier@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 9:05:11 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
Hi,
I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small correction:
Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
Let's see what we've got here:
A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
Marc,
I agree with you. I would rephrase your statement as the present setup is not sustainable. You can only fool some of the people some of the time... There are many bells ringing, many whistles blowing, lots of lights going on and off. It is foolish not to give them a second thought and make amends while there still time and opportunity. Sometime down the line it will be too late. We're making a sincere and honest effort here. The last thing we want to say is "I told you so," but the audience keeps on screaming "Kill! Kill!" Its hard to hear anything else over the crowd roar.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
At 13:58 20-10-2010, you wrote:
Let's see what we've got here:
A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director" who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last, you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to fail.
Marc Riddell
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org