It's misfit, isn't it? ... are Brian and Eugene speaking in different languages? -- Pavlo Shevelo [SUL] On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Eugene Eric Kim <eekim(a)blueoxen.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Casey Brown <lists(a)caseybrown.org> wrote: Gr8, thanks for pointing this out.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Tx. Do you know what counts as a user account given SUL? Someone who is logged on at another wiki merely visits, and now they are a new user account?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: I poked around a bit, and I think they have to actually sign in with the new account before its in the table, which makes sense, and means the #s are reasonable.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim &lt;eekim(a)blueoxen.com&gt; wrote: I think it is worth keeping in mind that not all of the proposals are the same either. Though the planning horizon is nominally five years, some of the suggestions include things that could be done relatively easily right now. For example, some issues could be accomplished by a single interested programmer and/or a team of engaged editors, without needing either the Foundation's stamp of approval or funding. I suspect that many such things, if they are truly worth doing and well supported by the larger community, would actually get implemented long before the Foundation gets around to endorsing a long-term plan. It would probably be a good idea for someone to start sorting proposals be their perceived difficulty and/or need for external resources (if no one has been already), so that the easy issues could be separated from the hard ones. -Robert Rohde

2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim &lt;eekim(a)blueoxen.com&gt;om>: I just saw this thread; I'm happy to jump in. What Eugene says is all accurate -- let me expand a little. Essentially, the purpose of the project is to develop a strategy for the Wikimedia movement, not just for the Wikimedia Foundation. What that means is that no single entity will be able to approve and drive forward the whole thing: individual players will drive forward the pieces that compel and engage and inspire them. So for example: * If it looks like it makes sense to stage a lot of events aimed at broadening participation in developed countries, the chapters would logically take the lead on that. * If it looks like it would make sense to conduct a massive awareness campaign in India, that would probably be moved forward in partnership between the Wikimedia Foundation and what might be -by then- an approved, new Indian chapter. * If it looks like a very strong focus on mobile makes sense, I expect that would be something driven forward by the tech staff at Wikimedia, in partnership with individual volunteer devs, and possibly supported by relationships with for-profit firms such as Orange. * If there is a simple thing that looks sensible, and one person wants to, and is able to, achieve it by him or herself, they would just do that. They wouldn't need to wait for anyone's goahead. You see what I mean? Essentially, the goal is that each player will make its own decisions based on its own context -- its own capacity, its skills and abilities and interests, its own goals and priorities. People will be able to do that however they want, in whatever process works for them. With regards to the Wikimedia Foundation, as Eugene said, if the process works well, it (the process) will deliver to the Board a set of high-level recommendations in key areas. By that time work will have been done, especially in the later stages of the task force work, to try to ensure the recommendations are synched up with each other and make sense together as much as possible --- but there will probably be a few areas in which incompatible (mutually exclusive) recommendations are submitted. The Board of Trustees will then work to resolve whatever contradictions are present, and to prioritize the work it wants to get done. And then, if all has gone well, it will approve the strategy plan. Hope that helps. And -- Board members should please speak up here also, especially if there are nuances to their understanding that differ from mine or Eugene's. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2009/9/23 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Wow, Jussi-Ville; I like it, thank you :-) Wikimedia is not always a tremendously warm culture, and I am sometimes guilty of feeling a little under-appreciated. This mail made me happy. I don't even care if you've already changed your mind: it was super-kind, and I thank you for it :-)

Hello Sue, Thank you very much for your explanation which is very informative and clear. So for your question my answer is "Yes, I do":) Let me presume that (in some reasonably short time) these explanation will be placed to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Decision-Making as (to the best of my belief) I'm not the only one who will look for such things there (as page title promises explanation). Yes, it would be great! And again Yes it does. A lot. -- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name] On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Sue Gardner &lt;sgardner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

Oh, that's sounds a bit different for me: The result of worldwide wiki-ish brainstorming will be sorta menu given to each and every of said stakeholders and they will pick up the ... granules from it combining them into own strategy of that stakeholder - like piking up 'meal' fitting their needs & preferences. Did I get the idea in a right (metaphor) way? It sounds like one more confirmation that process and it result will be open, so any 'body' (either institution or person, as well as group) will have a right to spin off some ideas getting them out/outside of WMF. Right? Thinking along that way: I presume that after WMF will 'make it mind' about 5-year strategy (ant apply the mentioned rubber stamp) the only way to get some ideas (incompatible or not fully compatible with WMF plan) implemented will be to take them outside the WMF. Oh I thought those are synonyms? No? Perhaps Movement=WMF+community Any comments, please? :) -- Pavlo Shevelo On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Samuel J Klein &lt;sj(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

Hello Ray, You understood my point perfectly well ;) I have no personal reasons/causes to be ... 'suspicious' about WMF but I'm from that part of the Earth where is in blood of everybody. So if some institution did not explain (publicly and in sufficient details) some important future steps it is the sign (for me and alike) that it's time to start asking questions ;) using Thank you very much for all your thoughtful letter. I do believe that further discussion about... 'relationships' (being non-native speaker I'm in lack of better wording) between community/'movement' and WMF (as main institution) should be essential part of strategic planning process. -- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name] On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: