Hi,
just a link-post, but IMO highly interesting http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
often various examples how various free / opensource groups organize their matters are posted here: This is a post from one of NetBSD founders describing what problems led the once prospective project into irrelevance. (management, culture, Foundation going wrong,..)
Jan Kulveit (Wikimol)
Jan Kulveit wrote:
Hi,
just a link-post, but IMO highly interesting http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
often various examples how various free / opensource groups organize their matters are posted here: This is a post from one of NetBSD founders describing what problems led the once prospective project into irrelevance. (management, culture, Foundation going wrong,..)
Jan Kulveit (Wikimol)
Oh man...
I could put right now half of the points as already valid for us. And have been thinking of the other half as possible future as well :-(
ant
Jan Kulveit wrote:
just a link-post, but IMO highly interesting http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
often various examples how various free / opensource groups organize their matters are posted here: This is a post from one of NetBSD founders describing what problems led the once prospective project into irrelevance. (management, culture, Foundation going wrong,..)
I find this part especially interesting, on the need for a strong separation between a Foundation that provides infrastructure and a community that manages the project:
6) The existing NetBSD Foundation must be disbanded, and replaced with an organization that fulfills its original purpose: to merely handle administrative issues, and not to manage day-to-day affairs. The extra committees, which mostly do nothing, must be disbanded -- they serve only to obfuscate things. Everything else must revert to the historically separate entity, the NetBSD Project, to be managed based on technical merits. There must be no perceived glamour in participating in the Foundation; it must be composed of people doing it because they are dedicated and want to help the project.
-Mark
The important take-home from this email is not so much anything it says about open source projects, but that it was written by a project founder (Charles Hannum) upset that they did to him what he did to another project founder (Theo deRaadt) several years previously. Everything else is a real problem, but that's what he really hates about the NetBSD Foundation.
The main problem with NetBSD, in my opinion, is that it doesn't really have a compelling story. DeRaadt's fork, OpenBSD, is obsessive about security and cryptography; it's a small project, but that's a good enough goal to keep people interested and working on it. Despite it having substituted stifling project bureaucracy with deRaadt's famously abrasive but practical personality.
Does Wikimedia have a compelling enough story to keep people here despite the other people? Well, I'm still here ...
- d.
There is a discussion on the french wikipedia, precisely on this topic. I invite you to have a look here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
It is in english, translated in french (or the reverse).
One of our contributor raised the issue over what the bylaws say "The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge."
And what Jimbo says "Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects." --Jimbo Wales 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them. By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making a decision. But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
The problem with this is that one of the board members (Jimbo) not only is on the board, but also the foundator and for the english wikipedia the visionary/leader guy. Quite naturally, Jimbo has a lot of influence on how things are organised and on policies. This influence is much more limited in non english languages. The enwikipedia is governed by Jimbo because it accepts to be governed. But it is not governed by the board.
Seems like just "chatting" to you ? Seems not important ?
Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
Then, just quietly think of the future you want (before pushing the validation button on the board vote).
Anthere
Delirium wrote:
Jan Kulveit wrote:
just a link-post, but IMO highly interesting http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
often various examples how various free / opensource groups organize their matters are posted here: This is a post from one of NetBSD founders describing what problems led the once prospective project into irrelevance. (management, culture, Foundation going wrong,..)
I find this part especially interesting, on the need for a strong separation between a Foundation that provides infrastructure and a community that manages the project:
- The existing NetBSD Foundation must be disbanded, and replaced with an organization that fulfills its original purpose: to merely handle administrative issues, and not to manage day-to-day affairs. The extra committees, which mostly do nothing, must be disbanded -- they serve only to obfuscate things. Everything else must revert to the historically separate entity, the NetBSD Project, to be managed based on technical merits. There must be no perceived glamour in participating in the Foundation; it must be composed of people doing it because they are dedicated and want to help the project.
-Mark
Jan, thanks for the link. That is an essay well worth reading (no less so after David G's clarification).
On 9/2/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
What happened to that publishing effort, in the end? I thought any removal was to be temporary. Is there a discussion of the outcome preserved somewhere, or any follow-up?
SJ
On 02/09/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
There is a discussion on the french wikipedia, precisely on this topic. I invite you to have a look here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
So, how long before fr: forks? And, looking at the legal threats in that discussion, will they try to take the 'Wikipedia' trademark with them?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/09/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
There is a discussion on the french wikipedia, precisely on this topic. I invite you to have a look here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
So, how long before fr: forks? And, looking at the legal threats in that discussion, will they try to take the 'Wikipedia' trademark with them?
- d.
Erroneous conclusion.
Jimbo has been most involved in the french projects around 2004, when we created the french association and had to deal with "arbitration" issues. That's the moment he had the most "influence" over local decisions. Before that date, he was basically unknown. Now, he is quite known, but only through the press.
In my long history in Wikipedia, I have seen the french complains loudly pretty frequently, the first time ever when Jimbo complained about the french setting up a different logo (because the logo at that time was very english centric, which we viewed as unacceptable). I have a very strong memory of that day, and of Brion getting it right (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/intlwiki-l/2002-June/000451.html). I remember it VERY well, because that's the very day when I decided to get involved in international issues.
Someone can express pretty strongly a disagreement, without it necessarily leading to a fork. However, yes, that should be seen as a sign of anxiety. I recommand avoiding "fixing the issue" by saying "they did not understand me well, they should make the effort to really understand what I mean".
At least, if we want to develop internationally :-)
ant
On 9/3/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone can express pretty strongly a disagreement, without it necessarily leading to a fork. However, yes, that should be seen as a sign of anxiety. I recommand avoiding "fixing the issue" by saying "they did not understand me well, they should make the effort to really understand what I mean".
*nods*
"In a drama, there are always two people involved, otherwise it is not a drama" (anonymous)
And in miscommunication, there is always what you meant to say, what you said, what the other heard, and what the other understood (multiply the obstacles by two when different languages and cultures are involved)
When someone expresses their "not understanding", a better answer might be : "Ah, this is not what I meant, I must have expressed myself the wrong way, let me try to explain differently". More constructive than "I am right, you understood that all wrong".
At least, if we want to develop internationally :-)
Indeed.
Delphine
On 03/09/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
When someone expresses their "not understanding", a better answer might be : "Ah, this is not what I meant, I must have expressed myself the wrong way, let me try to explain differently". More constructive than "I am right, you understood that all wrong".
In the present case, it appears they did not bother to express their "not understanding", but instead went straight to publicly insinuating legal threats. I find it hard to see this as the fault or the responsibility of the speaker.
- d.
On 9/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/09/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
When someone expresses their "not understanding", a better answer might be : "Ah, this is not what I meant, I must have expressed myself the wrong way, let me try to explain differently". More constructive than "I am right, you understood that all wrong".
In the present case, it appears they did not bother to express their "not understanding", but instead went straight to publicly insinuating legal threats. I find it hard to see this as the fault or the responsibility of the speaker.
I am afraid I do not understand where you see legal threats. Can you please be more precise?
Thank you,
Delphine
On 03/09/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In the present case, it appears they did not bother to express their "not understanding", but instead went straight to publicly insinuating legal threats. I find it hard to see this as the fault or the responsibility of the speaker.
I am afraid I do not understand where you see legal threats. Can you please be more precise?
Looking again, I'm completely wrong to characterise the discussion of possible legal issues this way. I must apologise to Bradipus for having done so.
That said, it still strikes me as odd to see that amount of speculative text before, er, asking what the words legally mean as used.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
That said, it still strikes me as odd to see that amount of speculative text before, er, asking what the words legally mean as used.
Normally in law words have their regular dictionary definition unless the statute provides a more specific definition.
Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English: "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control, influence or regulate. "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain control or influence over.
This is much closer to the meaning that the French speakers are concerned about. If somehow certain Americans believe that these words should have a more benign interpretation there should be some legal basis for that. One deals with these ambiguities before they become real problems. When the dispute goes so far that the courts are left to decide they will do so on the basis of what they have in front of them. Judges tend to be unmoved when people complain that they thought the opponent differs from what is on paper.
Ec
As ever I am in profound sympathy with Anthere's analyses, if only because I believe that she is one whose views have been shaped by the principles that underlay the development of Wikipedia, and not by the vagaries that accompany unrestricted growth.
Jimbo has been the inspiration without which this process would never have succeded. His tireless role as spokesfather has resulted in a popularity for Wikipedia that knows few rivals. and all that growth has evolved from a few fundamental concepts into a daughter of whom he can be justly proud. This precocious daughter has grown faster than anyone might have expected; she has been exposed to ideas that were not put there by her father. That makes it more difficult for a father to protect that daughter to the extent that he believes she should be. As the long list of suitors lines up at the door the uncertainty grows. The best solution then will be to trust her to carry on with the values that he taught her, and that she will someday let him hold the grandchildren.
I do not view Jimbo as a person captivated by details, or as one who could sit at length unravelling legal minutiae, or as a person who could dwell on the niceties that distinguish between "help and support" and "manage and govern". Other people do. That range of visions goes from the seemingly anarchic view that a few principles stand above all else to the other extreme that attaches priority to a well run and well organized machinery. Together they must find the neutral point that works best with all the appropriate checks and balances. Such a theme and such a dynamic has been at the heart of all the major internal disputes that Wikipedia has faced.
Governance for the kind of entity that has built up brings us into a lot of uncharted territory. There are no guidelines for such a massive loosely connected organism that spans almost the entire world. Imposing a paternalistic corporate structure is not going to do much for assuring and trusting that it can evolve an appropriate form of governance.
Ec
Anthere wrote:
There is a discussion on the french wikipedia, precisely on this topic. I invite you to have a look here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
One of our contributor raised the issue over what the bylaws say "The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge."
And what Jimbo says "Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects." --Jimbo Wales 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them. By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making a decision. But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
The problem with this is that one of the board members (Jimbo) not only is on the board, but also the foundator and for the english wikipedia the visionary/leader guy. Quite naturally, Jimbo has a lot of influence on how things are organised and on policies. This influence is much more limited in non english languages. The enwikipedia is governed by Jimbo because it accepts to be governed. But it is not governed by the board.
Seems like just "chatting" to you ? Seems not important ?
Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
Then, just quietly think of the future you want (before pushing the validation button on the board vote).
Anthere wrote:
As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them. By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
What you mention here are of course the most important tasks of the foundation. However, my position is a bit different to yours. IMO the foundation has also the duty to step in as an emergency government in case the self government of a projects doesn't work. But this should always be a temporary measure and restricted to single actions.
I'm thinking here for example of cases like the quran quote in the site notice of the urdu wikipedia. If the community in a wiki acts against the core principles of Wikimedia, for example violates the neutrality, it needs someone external to set it right. Of course this is something which could also be done by the international community except that this is not a body with any authority but a bunch of loosely connected individuals with diverse opinions.
Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making a decision. But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
And in rare cases, it should be - or the foundation decides to delegate these cases to a "Wiki Emergency response team" (WERT ;-) which takes care of cases like * HELP, all sysops of our Wikipedia are quitting and there is a big fight over the ban of an editor!!! * Why disturb readers of our Wiki with a sitenotice about some irrelevant board elections? Let's rather display the football results there * We want to know more about our readers - let's just record every page view on an external logfile via the global javascript... * ...
This team could take over the task individual board members do now: find out what's going on, talk to the involved parties, try to moderate conflicts and find solutions.
The problem with this is that one of the board members (Jimbo) not only is on the board, but also the foundator and for the english wikipedia the visionary/leader guy. Quite naturally, Jimbo has a lot of influence on how things are organised and on policies. This influence is much more limited in non english languages. The enwikipedia is governed by Jimbo because it accepts to be governed. But it is not governed by the board.
good explanation.
Seems like just "chatting" to you ? Seems not important ?
Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
Could you be a bit less cryptic here, please, and explain what you are refering to?
greetings, elian
On 9/3/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
I'm thinking here for example of cases like the quran quote in the site notice of the urdu wikipedia. If the community in a wiki acts against the core principles of Wikimedia, for example violates the neutrality, it needs someone external to set it right. Of course this is something which could also be done by the international community except that this is not a body with any authority but a bunch of loosely connected individuals with diverse opinions.
There are various ways that could be handled from the bottom up.
And in rare cases, it should be - or the foundation decides to delegate these cases to a "Wiki Emergency response team" (WERT ;-) which takes care of cases like
- HELP, all sysops of our Wikipedia are quitting and there is a big
fight over the ban of an editor!!!
Doing nothing would probably be the best option there. You don't have nearly enough data to act upon.
- Why disturb readers of our Wiki with a sitenotice about some
irrelevant board elections? Let's rather display the football results there
Readers? Tell them about anonnotice.
- We want to know more about our readers - let's just record every page
view on an external logfile via the global javascript...
That one falls within the purview of the devs who most people will listen to.
This team could take over the task individual board members do now: find out what's going on, talk to the involved parties, try to moderate conflicts and find solutions.
No thank you we've got enough people claiming to act with the authority of the foundation already.
Could you be a bit less cryptic here, please, and explain what you are refering to?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior
Someone took a copy to a print on demand publisher who offered it for sale.
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Anthere wrote:
As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them. By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
What you mention here are of course the most important tasks of the foundation. However, my position is a bit different to yours. IMO the foundation has also the duty to step in as an emergency government in case the self government of a projects doesn't work. But this should always be a temporary measure and restricted to single actions.
I'm thinking here for example of cases like the quran quote in the site notice of the urdu wikipedia. If the community in a wiki acts against the core principles of Wikimedia, for example violates the neutrality, it needs someone external to set it right. Of course this is something which could also be done by the international community except that this is not a body with any authority but a bunch of loosely connected individuals with diverse opinions.
Oh, yes. I absolutely agree with you. But note that it is not see much "governing" that "ensuring that the basic principles of our projects" are respected. It is not setting up new rules, but an ultimate barrier of protection. See the Foundation as a mom rather than a dad :-)
Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making a decision. But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
And in rare cases, it should be - or the foundation decides to delegate these cases to a "Wiki Emergency response team" (WERT ;-) which takes care of cases like
- HELP, all sysops of our Wikipedia are quitting and there is a big
fight over the ban of an editor!!!
- Why disturb readers of our Wiki with a sitenotice about some
irrelevant board elections? Let's rather display the football results there
- We want to know more about our readers - let's just record every page
view on an external logfile via the global javascript...
- ...
This team could take over the task individual board members do now: find out what's going on, talk to the involved parties, try to moderate conflicts and find solutions.
The problem with this is that one of the board members (Jimbo) not only is on the board, but also the foundator and for the english wikipedia the visionary/leader guy. Quite naturally, Jimbo has a lot of influence on how things are organised and on policies. This influence is much more limited in non english languages. The enwikipedia is governed by Jimbo because it accepts to be governed. But it is not governed by the board.
good explanation.
Seems like just "chatting" to you ? Seems not important ?
Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
Could you be a bit less cryptic here, please, and explain what you are refering to?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_talk:Publication_of_the_Month Should explain it. Ask Robert for more if necessary.
But let me just give a few word to talk about a fear I have. It is just a fear right now, but I feel we are rather heading in that direction, rather than not.
The content is produced with in mind, maximum reusability. If, to publish the content, editors have to previously obtain the authorization of the Foundation, then, we are failing our goals. If to publish the content, publishers have to pay the Foundation indirectly, for the use of the brand, we are failing our goals. Of course, the brand is a pretty cool way for the Foundation to monetize the content, hence to support the projects. But it should not impair reusability.
So, I'd say, when a group of editors try to publish a wikijunior on which *they* have given hundreds of hours, for which *they* are authors and which *they* publish purposefully under a free licence, immediatly taking down the printed wikijunior (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-July/008191.html) without prior discussion, strike me as being a move preventing precisely what the licence meant our projects to be. I'll mention it even more confortably that at that point, Wikijunior was not a trademark of the Foundation (Brad has since then started the registration).
I am bordering a situation where I am meeting an ethical limitation. As a board member, I am supposed to be fully dedicated to the foundation and to support it to the best of my abilities. Loyalty. So, in this case, to "protect" the brand we do not own yet, and which could need to be protected to prevent anyone from monetizing it later in the future.
On the other hand, my heart is more in the projects themselves, which I believe were set up so that the content could be reused, which involved printing. In which case, removing the wikibooks from Lulu, until discussion and agreement has been made with the Foundation... is clearly perceived as a move preventing publishing and reuse. Hence against our original mission.
Where should my loyalty stand ? How to assume the fact that if Robert et al went an agreement from the Foundation, they are likely to wait "months" before getting it. How to accept the fact the authors themselves might have the PAY for the right to publish a work THEY wrote and offered as a common good ? And how to accept the fact that one person has the power to simply prevent publishing the work done by others, by a simple email ?
(PS: I know that later explanations were that the take down notice given to Lulu was meant to be because of a mix in who was author and responsable. But I also know this was the explanation given afterwards. If you look at the original email, it was taken down because of the brand use).
I hope this clarify my crytic comment :-) I didnot think it was cryptic myself.
greetings, elian
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Anthere wrote:
As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them. By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
What you mention here are of course the most important tasks of the foundation. However, my position is a bit different to yours. IMO the foundation has also the duty to step in as an emergency government in case the self government of a projects doesn't work. But this should always be a temporary measure and restricted to single actions.
I'm thinking here for example of cases like the quran quote in the site notice of the urdu wikipedia. If the community in a wiki acts against the core principles of Wikimedia, for example violates the neutrality, it needs someone external to set it right. Of course this is something which could also be done by the international community except that this is not a body with any authority but a bunch of loosely connected individuals with diverse opinions.
That sounds reasonable to me. In some respects this can be viewed more as "facilitating" than really "governing". I think it's clear that if every Wikipedian could speak Urdu and was active at that Wikipedia, the dispute you mention would never have happened in the first place---the Wikipedian community as a whole wouldn't be in favor of putting such a quote up. However most Wikipedians can speak only a small subset of the total languages in the world, so there has to be some active facilitation to ensure that all the different languages' projects are at least in broad outlines following the goals of the project.
In some languages, like en:, the facilitation needed is minimal---lots and lots of people speak enough English to at least be able to tell what's going on and express their opinion if they think it's going wrongly. So not only Americans and Britons, but also Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc. can all directly express their opinion about what en: should be like, and it's basically impossible for some small group of people to take it in a direction everyone else disagrees in without someone noticing and pointing it out. Preventing that from happening on smaller Wikipedias in lesser-spoken languages requires some more active oversight, though.
-Mark
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Anthere wrote:
As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them. By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
What you mention here are of course the most important tasks of the foundation. However, my position is a bit different to yours. IMO the foundation has also the duty to step in as an emergency government in case the self government of a projects doesn't work. But this should always be a temporary measure and restricted to single actions.
I'm thinking here for example of cases like the quran quote in the site notice of the urdu wikipedia. If the community in a wiki acts against the core principles of Wikimedia, for example violates the neutrality, it needs someone external to set it right. Of course this is something which could also be done by the international community except that this is not a body with any authority but a bunch of loosely connected individuals with diverse opinions.
The core principles are paramount. There are times when the Board should intervene, and a clear policy needs to be established to show when the Board will intervene and when not. A discussion on how NPOV will apply to a specific project does not imply that the project intends to violate the principle.
Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making a decision. But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
And in rare cases, it should be - or the foundation decides to delegate these cases to a "Wiki Emergency response team" (WERT ;-) which takes care of cases like
- HELP, all sysops of our Wikipedia are quitting and there is a big
fight over the ban of an editor!!!
Dealing with emergencies will always be a requirement and hopefully the "WERT" would be able to review and report back to those who need the help. They could then try to resolve the problems based on those recommendations. The kind of stagnation that would require Board direct intervention should be pre-defined. For the most part the projects need to take responsibility for their own respective shows, and the Board needs to restrain the urge to intervene when the project should be solving its own problems.
- We want to know more about our readers - let's just record every page
view on an external logfile via the global javascript...
This is more in the nature of technical assistance. The Board should still be able to provide that if people are available to do that, and if providing that help does not cause undue stress on the hardware.
Ec
And what Jimbo says "Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects." --Jimbo Wales 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This omits significant context from the conversation. (Ah, the perils of trying to follow a discussion across multiple wikis, it is not your fault Anthere.)
I also said, but can't find where, that I think that people are reading far too much into "governs" and "manages". I think that, read properly, there is absolutely no question that the foundation governs and manages the projects: as always, and this includes Anthere, and everything that she has supported over the years.
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
--Jimbo
On 03/09/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
There's a bit much "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!" "Er, I'm not telling you anything." "I DON'T CARE! FUCK YOU!" to that discussion Anthere linked.
- d.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
And what Jimbo says "Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects." --Jimbo Wales 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This omits significant context from the conversation. (Ah, the perils of trying to follow a discussion across multiple wikis, it is not your fault Anthere.)
eh ! But the french page I mentionned (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo) is quite informative and provides copies of other discussions as well as links. What I would like to point out rather... is the general impact of such a sentence. Maybe it makes sense to make it "illegal" to give quotes out of their context as some jurisdictions seem to do :)
I also said, but can't find where, that I think that people are reading far too much into "governs" and "manages". I think that, read properly, there is absolutely no question that the foundation governs and manages the projects: as always, and this includes Anthere, and everything that she has supported over the years.
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
I think... governing and managing have a significant different sens in english and french.
I take it you purchased that "fabulous" book Delphine recommanded us ? International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior from Nancy J. Aldler ? If not, ask Brad, he got one examplar. Go and read Part I, chapter 2, from pages 45 to 62 (How do cultural differences affect organisations ?). Have a careful look over the part dealing with "worldwide differences in managerial style". There is a very interesting question: in response to the statement "the main reason for a hierarchical structure is that everybody knows who has the authority over whom". Managers from the USA strongly disagree and believe management is more about organising tasks and facilitating problem solving around those tasks. In contrast, managing in France is pretty much related to authority/power. It is even higher in countries such as Japan (I invite Brad to relate this with the request from Aphaia for a board approval of elections officials, as opposed to his own suggestion that it is not the board business).
We may use the same words (managing, governing), but these words do not have the same sense in my country and in yours. Saying your sense is the "correct" one, while our sense is the "wrong" one, would be a very wrong approach. The best you can do is to "realise" that when you say the Foundation manages the projects (with the idea of organising things and facilitating things), we read and understand the Foundation has the full authority over how the projects are run (to a wide extent, even to the point of details). Which we would generally agree I am sure, is incorrect.
The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which have different meaning and implications depending on languages.
Anthere
--Jimbo
On 03/09/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
I think... governing and managing have a significant different sens in english and french.
Apart from all else, they're related but different languages. So the words "govern" and "manage" may appear to mean the same thing in both (adjusting to each other's spelling conventions) but not. So if the French readers are reading the words "governing" and "managing" and thinking they have the French meaning when they don't, then all they need to do is ASSUME BAD FAITH and then we get pages like that one.
Note that errors of translation combine badly with assumption of bad faith. Wikimedia has had blowups recently caused by precisely this. And I blame the groundless assumptions of bad faith.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/09/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
I think... governing and managing have a significant different sens in english and french.
Apart from all else, they're related but different languages. So the words "govern" and "manage" may appear to mean the same thing in both (adjusting to each other's spelling conventions) but not. So if the French readers are reading the words "governing" and "managing" and thinking they have the French meaning when they don't, then all they need to do is ASSUME BAD FAITH and then we get pages like that one.
Note that errors of translation combine badly with assumption of bad faith. Wikimedia has had blowups recently caused by precisely this. And I blame the groundless assumptions of bad faith.
You miss the point completely. Even if Anthere, as a very involved and very plugged in person, can be convinced that the wording "govern and manage" is an innocent variation of what is really intended, she is still only one person. You belittle the problem by relegating it to "spelling conventions". Are you suggesting that all the French who, because of the inextricable connection between language and culture, see the wording as more sinister than you believe it to be must be assuming bad faith? It puts you an a par with those Englishman who believe that the only way you can get the French to understand what you say is to speak louder.
Even in a strictly English language context the terms "govern and manage" are not as benign as you would have us believe. Asserting that words mean exactly what you intend them to mean may work in Wonderland. In a multicultural environment we do better to seek other words which reflect our common intent, because each person and each culture has his or its own preconceptions about the meaning of a word.
Ec
On 03/09/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
You miss the point completely. Even if Anthere, as a very involved and very plugged in person, can be convinced that the wording "govern and manage" is an innocent variation of what is really intended, she is still only one person. You belittle the problem by relegating it to "spelling conventions". Are you suggesting that all the French who,
No, I'm talking about people who explode at others because, rather than check that what they thought the person meant was what they actually meant, they assume bad faith and make a ridiculous public fuss, e.g. Anthere at the Wikimedia press conference - which it turned out was because she had understood the situation to be the precise opposite of what it was, but couldn't be bothered to clarify this; or the present case, where differences in usage of "govern" and "manage" lead to the person on that page assuming bad faith and throwing around legal threats, rather than first asking. Is that any clearer?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/09/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
I think... governing and managing have a significant different sens in english and french.
Apart from all else, they're related but different languages. So the words "govern" and "manage" may appear to mean the same thing in both (adjusting to each other's spelling conventions) but not. So if the French readers are reading the words "governing" and "managing" and thinking they have the French meaning when they don't, then all they need to do is ASSUME BAD FAITH and then we get pages like that one.
Note that errors of translation combine badly with assumption of bad faith. Wikimedia has had blowups recently caused by precisely this. And I blame the groundless assumptions of bad faith.
- d.
Hoi, Words are known to be problematic; awareness about this can be deduced by the fact that a book on this topic is doing the rounds. It becomes an added responsibility to be careful with using problematic concepts when you are aware of these issues. I have seen several great examples where people where given a message that did not arrive because the way in which it was put did not convey the message. Many people are not plain spoken.
When assuming bad faith is seen as the problem of the person listening and the person speaking is "innocent", you paint a picture where absolute understanding of the English language is expected. It is easy to understand that this is not what happens in real life even among those that speak some form of English. The French and the English language are in different language families and thereby not really related, the French and the British share a long history of mutual opposition and distrust.
There is a word for words that seem to mean the same but do not; they are false friends.
Thanks, GerardM
On 03/09/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When assuming bad faith is seen as the problem of the person listening and the person speaking is "innocent", you paint a picture where absolute understanding of the English language is expected.
No, what I meant was when someone hears something in another language that sounds bad to them, and, rather than ask, immediately assumes bad faith of the speaker and makes a big public fuss. What is the hard part about bothering to verify first?#
- d.
Anthere wrote:
We may use the same words (managing, governing), but these words do not have the same sense in my country and in yours. Saying your sense is the "correct" one, while our sense is the "wrong" one, would be a very wrong approach.
As long as the discussion is in English, the English meaning of the words is the correct one. When the text is translated to French, other words that have the same meaning must be chosen. Sorry, I don't speak French so I can't help out with details.
But in this case, the cultural difference seems to be about how much importance is given to a single word. I haven't seen the French participants explain exactly which practical problems or consequences they see from Jimbo's statement, or how they suggest he should have phrased it instead. Without this explanation, their apparent anger seems irrational. Perhaps this is a sign that something else is wrong? Perhaps they want to be angry?
In January 2001 Jimbo was careless enough to say Wikipedia might have advertising in the future, or something to that end. You can of course interpret words such as "advertising", "might" and "future" very differently, but the practical problem is that many would dislike the non-commercial wikipedia.org (then .com) to look like normal commercial websites. The consequence at that time was that the Spanish user community forked and moved to their own website, not because this problem had occurred, but because they feared it might occur, perhaps in the near future. (There could of course have been other reasons for the fork, and maybe this statement was used only as an excuse. I don't know that, but I happen to know that setting up your own server can be great fun.) Jimbo later clarified that he saw advertising as a possible last resort, i.e. a much weaker interpretation of "might" and "future", but then the Spanish fork had already taken place.
Really, all that is required is to "assume good faith". When a statement sounds like terrible news, perhaps there was a simple mistake in translation. It is better to ask for a clarification before starting to get angry.
Hmm... there is no French interwiki link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Anthere wrote:
We may use the same words (managing, governing), but these words do not have the same sense in my country and in yours. Saying your sense is the "correct" one, while our sense is the "wrong" one, would be a very wrong approach.
As long as the discussion is in English, the English meaning of the words is the correct one.
You are missing the point. We claim to be an international organisation. Which mean people must understand each other. As Delphine explained, there is what person1 mean to say, what person1 really say, what person2 hears and what person2 really understand.
There is no "correct" sense. There is a need for people to have the same interpretation of words.
When the text is translated to
French, other words that have the same meaning must be chosen. Sorry, I don't speak French so I can't help out with details.
But in this case, the cultural difference seems to be about how much importance is given to a single word. I haven't seen the French participants explain exactly which practical problems or consequences they see from Jimbo's statement, or how they suggest he should have phrased it instead.
The mission statement in the bylaws refers to "support". Not to governing or managing. If the bylaws statement is incorrect and the Foundation is governing the projects, then the statement should be fixed. I suggest we say the Foundation supports the projects, as the mission statement says (and as I think we are really doing).
Without this explanation,
their apparent anger seems irrational. Perhaps this is a sign that something else is wrong? Perhaps they want to be angry?
In January 2001 Jimbo was careless enough to say Wikipedia might have advertising in the future, or something to that end. You can of course interpret words such as "advertising", "might" and "future" very differently, but the practical problem is that many would dislike the non-commercial wikipedia.org (then .com) to look like normal commercial websites. The consequence at that time was that the Spanish user community forked and moved to their own website, not because this problem had occurred, but because they feared it might occur, perhaps in the near future. (There could of course have been other reasons for the fork, and maybe this statement was used only as an excuse. I don't know that, but I happen to know that setting up your own server can be great fun.) Jimbo later clarified that he saw advertising as a possible last resort, i.e. a much weaker interpretation of "might" and "future", but then the Spanish fork had already taken place.
Really, all that is required is to "assume good faith". When a statement sounds like terrible news, perhaps there was a simple mistake in translation. It is better to ask for a clarification before starting to get angry.
Assume good faith... Okay. Let me suggest another interesting approach of the issue then...
You know we frequently receive lawyers calls or mails. Some of them being ... ahum, just plain "invitations to meet in a court in front of a judge". The one invited is the *Foundation*. Usually not the author. Usually not the global community. Not you. It is the Foundation, and through the Foundation, it is the board.
One of the best arguments we use to defend the Foundation in court is "the Foundation is NOT the author. The Foundation is not governing the projects. The Foundation is not in charge. The Foundation does not set the rules and the editorial policy. The Foundation is ONLY hosting the projects".
Poor argument to defend ourselves if the Foundation at the same time publicly claims to be managing and governing the projects.
The lawyer in charge of putting our head in the mud, imho, will not assume good faith. Lawyers do not know bad faith and good faith. They know results. The lawyer will simply use the statement to show that the claim we make in the bylaws of simple "support"... is incorrect.
In short, public statement that we are governing and managing the projects, not only is incorrect in certain definitions of the words "managing" and "governing", but on top, it is dangerous.
I am sorry to say that. But I am serious :-(
Hmm... there is no French interwiki link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
Which is of course always a good reminder anyway :-)
Anthere wrote:
The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which have different meaning and implications depending on languages.
Then I trust that you will help me by explaining my meaning in French, to French people, since I can speak only English and (barely) German.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which have different meaning and implications depending on languages.
Then I trust that you will help me by explaining my meaning in French, to French people, since I can speak only English and (barely) German.
--Jimbo
Yup. Done. Hmmm, since then Bradypus has decided to join foundation-l :-)
ant
Yep, here I am.
I have followed the thread and I would like to thank most of you, including Jimbo, for taking some moments to try to bring answers to my questions.
I have of course a special thank for Anthere, who brought the issue here.
For some of you, I would like to make things clear: in asking these questions, I never made a legal threat, I never made any threat at all, I was never rude to anybody and I never considered anybody's input otherwise than by assuming good faith.
At some point, of course, I had a small issue with Jimbo, as I am pretty sure he did not read my second and last message on his page. But I fully understand he is a super busy guy. I am just telling this because some have questionned my capacity to read what others are writing ;-)
In case you would be interested by what my conclusion is, well you can read it there: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo The page has been completely reworked to facilitate reading for both language speakers (french and english). My current conclusions are pretty much the same as what they were a week ago, and the same as what lots of people said here. So I guess now I did get it, although I think Anthere may be right when she says using words such as "govern" and "manage" might create an issue also with the outside world.
Still happy to discuss.
Bradipus aka Vincent
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthere" Anthere9@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How not to manage opensource project
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which have different meaning and implications depending on languages.
Then I trust that you will help me by explaining my meaning in French, to French people, since I can speak only English and (barely) German.
--Jimbo
Yup. Done. Hmmm, since then Bradypus has decided to join foundation-l :-)
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bradypus wrote:
At some point, of course, I had a small issue with Jimbo, as I am pretty sure he did not read my second and last message on his page. But I fully understand he is a super busy guy. I am just telling this because some have questionned my capacity to read what others are writing ;-)
In case you would be interested by what my conclusion is, well you can read it there: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo The page has been completely reworked to facilitate reading for both language speakers (french and english). My current conclusions are pretty much the same as what they were a week ago, and the same as what lots of people said here. So I guess now I did get it, although I think Anthere may be right when she says using words such as "govern" and "manage" might create an issue also with the outside world.
It is inaccurate to cast this issue in the framework of false friends that characterize a language based difference of meanings. The uncertain meaning is just as much there in English alone.
As I quoted before:
Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English: "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control, influence or regulate. "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain control or influence over.
When there is a possibility that future confusion would arise it is better to find common ground on the meaning of words, rather than depend on a single person's subjective and perhaps eccentric interpretation of those words.
Ec
You say Anthere is eccentric? :-o I think I agree with you, but Anthere had raised an interesting issue that was interesting. It is really all about what a court would think in front of an organisation that would at the same time say "I am not accountable for the content of Wikipedia" and "I am governing and managing Wikipedia". Do you want to test that? Not sure just looking at the Webster solves the issue: it can only be solved by the appropriate persons, i.e. US lawyers. I myself have a law degree, but a european one. And I heard such strange things about the legal system they have in the colonies ^_^
Bradipus
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
It is inaccurate to cast this issue in the framework of false friends that characterize a language based difference of meanings. The uncertain meaning is just as much there in English alone.
As I quoted before:
Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English: "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control, influence or regulate. "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain control or influence over.
When there is a possibility that future confusion would arise it is better to find common ground on the meaning of words, rather than depend on a single person's subjective and perhaps eccentric interpretation of those words.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bradypus wrote:
You say Anthere is eccentric? :-o I think I agree with you, but Anthere had raised an interesting issue that was interesting.
Je n'ai pas dit qu'Anthere est excentrique, mais même si je ne l'aurais pensé ça ne serait que pour exprimer une forme conique parmi les plus gentilles.
L'excentricité dont je parlait s'appliquait à une idée et pas à une personne. La personne qui se servait d'une interpretation excentrique n'était pas Anthere.
It is really all about what a court would think in front of an organisation that would at the same time say "I am not accountable for the content of Wikipedia" and "I am governing and managing Wikipedia". Do you want to test that? Not sure just looking at the Webster solves the issue: it can only be solved by the appropriate persons, i.e. US lawyers. I myself have a law degree, but a european one. And I heard such strange things about the legal system they have in the colonies ^_^
Bradipus
Poursuivre une décision dans la cour ne serait pas ma façon préféré de régler cette affaire. Je préférerais un choix de mots plus sensible à la situation. Effectivement en réclamant le droit "to govern and manage" on doit accepter une plus grande responsabilité pour ce qui se passe. On ne peux plus prendre la position d'être un simple fournisseur d'accès. Il faut se rappeler que l'idée du "free" telle qu'elle est comprise par les "Libertarians" américains reste toujours embourbée dans le paradoxe. Elle naît de la théorie corporatiste que les américains sont les mieux doué pour définir la liberté des autres.
Je doute que les avocats américans seraient les meilleurs personnes pour trouver une solution. Rappellons nous qu'on peut toujours s'acheter un avocat qui donnerait la réponse qu'on veut, surtout dans un système adversarial.
Si le statut ne donne pas de définition aux mots employés, il faut avoir recours aux précédents. Si les précédents nous servent pas il faut regarder dans le dictionnaire pour avoir le sens ordinaire des mots. J'admet que je n'ai pas fais de recherche dans les loi de la Floride, et que je n'ai pas regardé dans les décisions judiciaires pour me renseigner comment qu'ils ont interprté "govern" et "manage"
Quand on considère le système de lois inquisitorialles en Europe il est difficile de le faire sans craindre l'influence de la main phantome du pape. :-)
Ec
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
It is inaccurate to cast this issue in the framework of false friends that characterize a language based difference of meanings. The uncertain meaning is just as much there in English alone.
As I quoted before:
Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English: "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control, influence or regulate. "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain control or influence over.
When there is a possibility that future confusion would arise it is better to find common ground on the meaning of words, rather than depend on a single person's subjective and perhaps eccentric interpretation of those words.
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Bradypus wrote:
You say Anthere is eccentric? :-o I think I agree with you, but Anthere had raised an interesting issue that was interesting.
Je n'ai pas dit qu'Anthere est excentrique, mais même si je ne l'aurais pensé ça ne serait que pour exprimer une forme conique parmi les plus gentilles.
L'excentricité dont je parlait s'appliquait à une idée et pas à une personne. La personne qui se servait d'une interpretation excentrique n'était pas Anthere. ------ I was just teasing you Ray, and I am pretty sure Anthere perfectly understood this. For the rest of you message: no comment.
Bradipus
Late coming eh? However ...
On 9/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision? Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.
As Anthere said, those two words can mean the very "involved in every decision" or at least "responsible in every little decision" in some cultures/contries. Those who come from those areas could understand those words in that meaning, not a US guy might have meant. And both of two can hardly realize they have found different connotations there. Unless they face the result of different analysis. In this thread, it arose between two people who have been working together for years and in good terms, and even that, it took a series of mails. And as Anthere said, in Japanese (or in Japanese contexts) manage and govern could mean more serious intervention/responsibility. In another cultural context, it could mean another attitude and deed.
That's a fun and difficulty in an intercultural communication. What you said can be always taken in a different way. What you understand can be different from what you heard. Vise versa. Essentially there is nothing different in communication in your neighborhood. Just differences can be easily amplified.
So, for being well understood, please be aware of those possibility; here you are talking for people whose cultural backgrounds could be different. Specially, I would like English native speakers to be consious to it. International communication is not totally same with talk to your neighborhood, it needs a different attention, wording, attention of different type. If someone said very rudeness, it would be your misunderstood or just his or her misunderstanding.
Anthere wrote:
Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
And restored as soon as the license and trademark issues were worked out.
Please do not misrepresent history.
--Jimbo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org