This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015, so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out of date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just about a year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit... show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No Board resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/WMF... recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of the BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol"
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related issues, but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I learn them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding reliable sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative centered at the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk about this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism, per the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this subject. Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015, so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out of date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just about a year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No Board resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of the BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues around the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board has been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community, and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new members or new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who the new Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board is, or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for engagement between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is that the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation on the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the other has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is one tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark craig.newmark@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related issues, but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I learn them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding reliable sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative centered at the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk about this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism, per the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this subject. Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding
page
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No Board resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit...
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues around the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board has been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community, and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new members or new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who the new Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board is, or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for engagement between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is that the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation on the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the other has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is one tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark craig.newmark@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk about this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism, per the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and
was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding
page
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously
out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dariusz
Thanks for that update. You don't mention any channels for communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting names. I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered important here?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues around the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community, and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new members
or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who the
new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board
is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is
that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation
on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the other has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is one tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark craig.newmark@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism,
per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and
was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected
at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding
page
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously
out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities
to
revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes
for
April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight
of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted,
and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and
if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
Best
Dj
On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz
Thanks for that update. You don't mention any channels for communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting names. I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered important here?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_ Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_ Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues around the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community, and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
members or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who the
new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board
is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is
that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation
on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
other
has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is one tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <craig.newmark@gmail.com
wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism,
per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
significant
funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation,
and
was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is
reflected at
corresponding
page
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously
out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's
priorities to
revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes
for
April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a
fortnight of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted,
and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members
be
welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community,
and if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on the 13th April, then? Or are you ready to discuss them now? Or will the possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the Advisory Board is reconstituted?
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
Best
Dj
On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz
Thanks for that update. You don't mention any channels for communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting names. I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered important here?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues
around
the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
Community,
and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
members or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who
the new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
Board is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is
that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
Foundation on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
other
has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is
one
tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
craig.newmark@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit
journalism, per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
significant
funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation,
and
was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so
in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is
reflected at
corresponding
page
seriously
out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's
priorities to
revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC
minutes for
April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on
the
subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a
fortnight of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been
reconstiuted, and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members
be
welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community,
and if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wik ipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/re ad/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I believe that the AB should have something to propose and say there, so until it is I am not going to put any proposals forward in this respect.
Best
On Jun 27, 2017 4:39 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on the 13th April, then? Or are you ready to discuss them now? Or will the possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the Advisory Board is reconstituted?
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
Best
Dj
On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz
Thanks for that update. You don't mention any channels for communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting names. I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered important here?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues
around
the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory
Board has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
Community,
and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
members or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who
the new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
Board is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to
establish
appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and
your
fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view
is that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
Foundation on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
other
has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is
one
tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
craig.newmark@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit
journalism, per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
significant
funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation,
and
was
> required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so
in
2015, > so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is
reflected at
corresponding
page > at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is
seriously
out
of > date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a > year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's
priorities to
> revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC
minutes for
> April published a couple of days ago at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ > Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 > show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on
the
> subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
> resoultion on the subject has yet been published. > > Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote
a
page
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ > movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board > recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
> movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a
fortnight of
the > BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
> again. > > What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been
reconstiuted, and
if > so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
> what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is > reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential
members be
> welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation > again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community,
and if
so, > what will the mechanism be for that interaction. > > "Rogol" > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wik ipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/re ad/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
the Advisory Board, as it was, and so far I can see, as it probably will be, does not have something like a structure or a channel. It is more like a bunch of individuals that mostly the board, and in some cases the WMF staff may (or mostly) may not approach on specific topics. The board and the staff don't need to follow the advises from these people and in most cases I don't see that the AB members organize or interact very much. For AB members that are very easy to access, like Florence, just to name an obvious example, you have multiple channels to ask them about their opinions. I see myself in this category too. Others may not want to be able contacted by everyone, and I see alot benefit to respect this and see only very small benefit to refuse them this.
So in my opinion the current model of the accessability of AB member is just fine.
Greetings
Ting
Am 27.06.2017 um 16:39 schrieb Rogol Domedonfors:
Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on the 13th April, then? Or are you ready to discuss them now? Or will the possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the Advisory Board is reconstituted?
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
Best
Dj
On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz
Thanks for that update. You don't mention any channels for communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting names. I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered important here?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues
around
the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
Community,
and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
members or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who
the new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
Board is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is
that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
Foundation on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
other
has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is
one
tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
craig.newmark@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit
journalism, per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
significant
funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation,
and
was
> required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so
in
2015, > so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is
reflected at
corresponding
page > at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is
seriously
out
of > date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a > year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's
priorities to
> revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC
minutes for
> April published a couple of days ago at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ > Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 > show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on
the
> subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
> resoultion on the subject has yet been published. > > Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ > movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board > recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
> movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a
fortnight of
the > BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
> again. > > What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been
reconstiuted, and
if > so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
> what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is > reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members
be
> welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation > again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community,
and if
so, > what will the mechanism be for that interaction. > > "Rogol" > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wik ipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/re ad/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for the updates, Dariusz and Nat.
I thought I'd mention that in the past my impression is that the Advisory Board was the body to which people were "retired" after serving high-profile roles, and the AB performed little to no actual work. It sounds like your plan is to reverse both of those patterns, which I think could be good.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues around the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community, and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new members
or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who the
new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board
is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is
that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation
on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the other has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is one tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark craig.newmark@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism,
per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and
was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected
at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding
page
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously
out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities
to
revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes
for
April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight
of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted,
and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and
if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Le 24/06/2017 à 13:10, Rogol Domedonfors a écrit :
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015, so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out of date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just about a year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit... show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No Board resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/WMF... recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of the BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I was asked to help with the strategy discussion design at the end of 2016. When the strategy discussions were effectively launched, I thought it made sense to actually ask their feedback to advisory board members. It does not really (in my view) what the current administrative status of the advboard is, there are wise people out there and it made sense to ask them for their opinion. Practically speaking, I could not pursue the talks very far (in particular in the second phase) due to multiple personal issues that really impaired my available time recently. But I think it simply made sense to get them involve, aware of the strategic process ongoing and inform them enough that they can jump in if needed.
I have no further comment to make on the Adv Board (it is not to hide anything. It simply is that I have no further comment to make).
Florence
Hello! Please find my answers inline.
What is the status of the Avisory Board?
There is no active Advisory Board at the moment, but the Board has approved inviting new members for the year. I have added a template to the page on Wikimedia Foundation site about it not being accurate at the moment. Thank you for noticing this.
Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members?
The Board has resolved to set up the Advisory Board during its meeting on June 16, 2017. The invitation letter will be sent tonight. As Dariusz mentioned already, the BGC discussion resulted in a proposal to the Board [2] to set up the Advisory Board on a lightweight structure (without budget and staff support at first), relying on the most active core of the former Advisory Board members, and a few individuals selected by the Board of Trustees based on the recommendation of the Governance Committee. So, basically it will consist of people mentioned here [3], but only those who took part in discussions about the AB role and strategy discussions and only after they accepted the invitation to join.
If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's
record?
As far as I know, Florence has indeed worked with the former AB members as a group on their input to the Strategy process. Although the Advisory Board has not been active for a few years, we are still very thankful for their perspective.
If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the
Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
That’s for the AB to work on and come up with a suggestion to the BGC/Board. The first task of the AB will be working on internal coordination, other questions may follow.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Former_members
Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015, so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out of date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just about a year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_ Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No Board resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/ 2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of the BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for the updates.
My perspective is that a functioning advisory board could be nice to have, and I hope that its scope and methods of work could be articulated somewhere such as in a charter. I think that such an arrangement would help everyone to know their roles and have realistic expectations.
My impression is that the AB is a less time-sensitive concern than several other issues that are on the Board's agenda, and I would suggest "not stressing" about the AB, although one benefit to having a functional and well-designed AB is that the AB might be able to help the Board a bit with some of the other issues.
Pine
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello! Please find my answers inline.
What is the status of the Avisory Board?
There is no active Advisory Board at the moment, but the Board has approved inviting new members for the year. I have added a template to the page on Wikimedia Foundation site about it not being accurate at the moment. Thank you for noticing this.
Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members?
The Board has resolved to set up the Advisory Board during its meeting on June 16, 2017. The invitation letter will be sent tonight. As Dariusz mentioned already, the BGC discussion resulted in a proposal to the Board [2] to set up the Advisory Board on a lightweight structure (without budget and staff support at first), relying on the most active core of the former Advisory Board members, and a few individuals selected by the Board of Trustees based on the recommendation of the Governance Committee. So, basically it will consist of people mentioned here [3], but only those who took part in discussions about the AB role and strategy discussions and only after they accepted the invitation to join.
If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's
record?
As far as I know, Florence has indeed worked with the former AB members as a group on their input to the Strategy process. Although the Advisory Board has not been active for a few years, we are still very thankful for their perspective.
If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the
Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
That’s for the AB to work on and come up with a suggestion to the BGC/Board. The first task of the AB will be working on internal coordination, other questions may follow.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Former_members
Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in
2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding
page
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out
of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just about
a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for April published a couple of days ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_ Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No Board resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/ 2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a fortnight of
the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence again.
What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been reconstiuted, and
if
so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory Board
is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in
operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community, and if
so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org