Hi y'all! *Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for Cycle 3 based on your feedback.* Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of participation: - More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including: -- Art+Feminism User Group -- WikiDonne's User Group -- Wikimedia Ghana User Group -- Wikimedia Poland - More than 1,000 individual participants - Nearly 2,300 statements In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks. Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback, concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly, to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs. Some things I’ve heard: - Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come together - Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these topics - Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision - A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the strategic direction as possible I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future. Here is the new proposed timeline: - July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the strategic direction. - August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the direction. - September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement. As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New Voices content.[3] Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and again, thank you for the feedback! *On a related note* As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100 community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have not done so already - please register today![8] Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”) Katherine PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9] [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Cycle_2 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Cycle_2/Reach [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Participate [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou [8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_ movement_strategy_process -- Katherine Maher Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885> +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873> kmaher(a)wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: who Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully, it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material available in the strategy process. I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was

Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello 13.00: Hoi, The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed, tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000 articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because otherwise it will not get published [2]. A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and there is no research into its value. The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable. Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message and not the messenger who is killed </grin>. Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions. Thanks, GerardM [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF traffic. [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on Wikipedia.. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based. On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu &lt;teemu.leinonen(a)aalto.fi&gt; wrote: :-) large viable readers collaboration habitually served in wrote: n on be next , _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: going wrote: teemu.leinonen(a)aalto.fi opinion are en-Wikipedia. be This because south WMF on life particular to some ignored. opened discuss pages Round really a https://meta.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard, Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well. I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that. Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices. They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as quickly as they can coherently write it up. There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive, contextual search and natural language processing to support better translation). Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to support some other end(s). You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work: New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design. I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and everyone is listening. Warmly, /a On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com bias educational projects and so message None on 3 be _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.

When you look at the team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support in standards.

The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.

When we do not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].

The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place, interlinked content.

We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.

We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links. This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because articles on the same subject share similar links. Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.

Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an English Wikipedia vision.

This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is not welcomed by most if at all.

Thanks, GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching- wikipedia-using-local-news.html [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia- lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html [3] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia- sister-projects-in-search.html On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: to your are our have viable readers collaboration habitually served in wrote: the carefully, weeks was i n I 1. next mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard, In line. On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we explore the problem. support I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share that view. small You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that is what you’re saying, I agree. not as I Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me. But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is best addressed by other movement players. in Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve. I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is non-existent. I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in between that keeps me up at night. Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most spoken language in the world [citation needed]. have make links preferential I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do, but that does not preclude me from listening to your view. In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care about. No argument from me. I agree. I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates. I welcome your position. wrote: is have Voices. work: Wikipedia developed, projects driven process for life particular to some ignored. time. pages but really completely to https://meta.wikimedia.org/ unsubscribe> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.

> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's > perspective. >

The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder

told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.

* Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process?

We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.

We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied. My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.

Robert, Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs. Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out, whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment. "Rogol" On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez &lt;wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com wrote: > What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to > believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible > procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What > measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in > regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we > do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a > specific enough answer? > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't > need > > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our > > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of > detail > > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it. > > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within > > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget > > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's > > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more > > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss > > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher > > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been > satisfied. > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something > seems > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi Anna, Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? groups OK, that makes sense. I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied. My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity. Pine On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > Hello Pine, > > Good evening. In line. > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the >> conversation. >> >> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I > would >> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna): >> > > First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We > had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction > first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn > to refine or course correct based on what we hear. > > We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups > and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for > translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen > all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon > it")... so that is the background reasoning. > > >> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what >> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the >> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the >> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.) >> > > We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all > of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern. > > > > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups > > >> >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs > in >> the strategy process? >> > > > Always good to hear from you, > /a > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> 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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Rogol, The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate. There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase: - organized groups - on-wiki - experts - new voices I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team. - Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia Deutschland. She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover of craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based. New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in different markets. - *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now. Adele has grown from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through her innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission. - *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised, and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. - *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his group. Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities. - I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it could be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the Middle East. - And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been involved in all of this as well. He has served the foundation well over a number of years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment. Perdoname, Jorge. These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen. One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing community discussions. For the on-wiki team: - We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain. Just to clarify the record. /a On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com wrote: > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based. > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu &lt;teemu.leinonen(a)aalto.fi > wrote: > > Hej, > > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion > :-) > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, If > > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be > > great. > > > -Teemu > > > > Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello > > 13.00: > > > > > Hoi, > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia developed, > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000 > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a > viable > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because > > > otherwise it will not get published [2]. > > > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of > > projects > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential > readers > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects > > and > > > there is no research into its value. > > > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any > collaboration > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that > habitually > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well > served > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south > in > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable. > > > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process > > so > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the > > message > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>. > > > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF > > > traffic. > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on > > > Wikipedia.. > > > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: the carefully, weeks was time. i but I 1. completely to https://meta.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l unsubscribe> 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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,

Greg and Anna This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this multi-million dollar project. Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to help you. "Rogol" On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum &lt;gvarnum(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: the calling Board), it what the and projected time costs detail direction what the and time costs detail mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, , _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone. Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this will help to keep the conversation focused and civil. Board, the Board approved a spending resolution million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to start. How much is the timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an analysis of the cost of the extension was done before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it. I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other issues that have come up. Thanks, Pine On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: