From: Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID: jhar77$4kl$1@dough.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations.
I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new
models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help unfolding that kind of mess.
But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ?
I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences come from 3 parameters:
a)Registered organizations / Informal groups b)Geography focused / Non geography focused c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that benefit us.
Then the classification comes like this:
1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia 2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia 3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia 4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other
So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better)
For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible. First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably they can fit in the Partner Organization model.
You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them to participate in Wikilovemsonuments.[1] I think Partner Organization can be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and same freedom than any body else.
They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same freedom you have to promote French ones.
[1] Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their participation because they were not a chapter and others including them. Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWiki_Loves_Monument...
On 2/13/12 11:04 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
From: Florence Devouardanthere9@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID:jhar77$4kl$1@dough.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations.
I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new
models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help unfolding that kind of mess.
But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ?
I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences come from 3 parameters:
a)Registered organizations / Informal groups b)Geography focused / Non geography focused c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that benefit us.
Then the classification comes like this:
1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia 2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia 3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia 4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other
So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better)
:)
Association in French means.... uncorporated non profit.
Wikimedia France is an... association
For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible. First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably they can fit in the Partner Organization model.
You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them to participate in Wikilovemsonuments.[1] I think Partner Organization can be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and same freedom than any body else.
They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same freedom you have to promote French ones.
I am surprised by your use of "they"
[1] Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their participation because they were not a chapter and others including them. Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWiki_Loves_Monument...
Indeed :)
FLorence
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!).
The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed "charter" text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again.
It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc.
Kind regards Ziko
----------------------------------------------------------- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ -----------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again.
So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible.
best, Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlescreveu:
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!).
The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed "charter" text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again.
It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc.
Kind regards Ziko
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Lodewijk, I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them - think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged "roughness". And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call "very rough and a first phase" is put on the table again. So I take it seriously and say what according to me must be said.
Kind regards Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again.
So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible.
best, Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlescreveu:
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!).
The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed "charter" text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again.
It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc.
Kind regards Ziko
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Ziko,
if you're saying that the proposals should not get 'extra points' because they happen to come from a working group that did not function optimally (far from that - although it was definitely not useless either) I totally agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its impact rather than its source.
Best, Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 14:23, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlescreveu:
Lodewijk, I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them
- think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It
must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged "roughness". And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call "very rough and a first phase" is put on the table again. So I take it seriously and say what according to me must be said.
Kind regards Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws
in
the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution).
When
wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard
enough
as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole
learning
process all over again.
So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible.
best, Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlescreveu:
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!).
The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed "charter" text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again.
It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc.
Kind regards Ziko
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's exactly what I did. Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its impact rather than its source.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Ziko and Lodewijk,
Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved in these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came out of the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve these recommendations.
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we need to increase the different kinds of organisation methods that we support.
But lets take the time to discuss the content of this proposal. If that means we need to take an extra month, so be it (would be my personal opinion) and make sure that we end up with something that is a marked improvement on the current situation. And we might have to refine it in the coming years (as we will have to do with most of the things we are trying to settle at this point :)
Thanks for your constructive feedback!
Jan-Bart
Op 14 feb. 2012, om 14:23 heeft Ziko van Dijk het volgende geschreven:
Lodewijk, I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them
- think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It
must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged "roughness". And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call "very rough and a first phase" is put on the table again. So I take it seriously and say what according to me must be said.
Kind regards Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again.
So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible.
best, Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlescreveu:
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!).
The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed "charter" text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again.
It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc.
Kind regards Ziko
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
I agree with the idea to ask Chapters, but since the Board is pushing this to be read at 10 March. I have no freaking Idea why that date is so Important - I know you people don't wanna mess with my birthday the day before ;) - but we all can wait a bit more to do things rights, rather than do it in a rush. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 14 February 2012 11:48, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl wrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlwrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk@wmnederland.nl
wrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
this would be called: too much drama
There is no life and death situation for "the chapters here". See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization...
Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: "I am going to die" for weeks on end.
In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all.
Jan-Bart
On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk@wmnederland.nl
wrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will not put my faith in another "great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded" Committe.
When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk.
Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations. We can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we have the data.
... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _____ *Béria Lima* * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.orgwrote:
this would be called: too much drama
There is no life and death situation for "the chapters here". See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization...
Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: "I am going to die" for weeks on end.
In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all.
Jan-Bart
On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk@wmnederland.nl
wrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally
sceptical of
extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history
of MR
since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote:
Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will not put my faith in another "great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded" Committe.
Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without you...
When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk.
Ok, it might be too late for you to influence it at that point
Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations. We can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we have the data.
Lets all come up with the best solution, we will refine it over de coming years and send you the data around 2015 :)
... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _____
I hate to say this: but you are doing quite well on the meaningless talk... (counting all your contributions to this topic on both internal and foundation).
Yes: I am being confrontational (which I almost never am). EIther help think of something that will make this work or stop repeating that it will never work (because I get it, I really heard you the first X times)
Jan-Bart
*Béria Lima*
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.orgwrote:
this would be called: too much drama
There is no life and death situation for "the chapters here". See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization...
Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: "I am going to die" for weeks on end.
In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all.
Jan-Bart
On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk@wmnederland.nl
wrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally
sceptical of
extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history
of MR
since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jan
Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you.
Here we can't solve anything. _____ *Béria Lima
**Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 16:01, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote:
Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I
will
not put my faith in another "great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded"
Committe.
Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without you...
When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of
how
it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk.
Ok, it might be too late for you to influence it at that point
Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations.
We
can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we
have
the data.
Lets all come up with the best solution, we will refine it over de coming years and send you the data around 2015 :)
... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _____
I hate to say this: but you are doing quite well on the meaningless talk... (counting all your contributions to this topic on both internal and foundation).
Yes: I am being confrontational (which I almost never am). EIther help think of something that will make this work or stop repeating that it will never work (because I get it, I really heard you the first X times)
Jan-Bart
*Béria Lima*
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
this would be called: too much drama
There is no life and death situation for "the chapters here". See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization...
Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: "I am going to die" for weeks on end.
In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try
to
think in opportunities rather that not think at all.
Jan-Bart
On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least
choose
the way we are going to die? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk <
vandijk@wmnederland.nl
wrote:
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org: > It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again.
How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range
of
opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally
sceptical of
extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history
of MR
since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals.
Kind regards Ziko
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15 feb. 2012, at 19:07, Béria Lima wrote:
Jan
Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you.
Actually that was not condescending (if anything: sarcasm?)
A good example of condescending would be if you cannot be bothered to address someone by their proper name (say continually calling them Jan instead of Jan-Bart) even when several people have pointed out to you what the correct name is.
Anyway, to end this thread: looking forward to your contributions on the relevant meta pages (for example: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/draft_Boa...)
Jan-Bart
Here we can't solve anything. _____ *Béria Lima
**Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 16:01, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote:
Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I
will
not put my faith in another "great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded"
Committe.
Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without you...
When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of
how
it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk.
Ok, it might be too late for you to influence it at that point
Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations.
We
can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we
have
the data.
Lets all come up with the best solution, we will refine it over de coming years and send you the data around 2015 :)
... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _____
I hate to say this: but you are doing quite well on the meaningless talk... (counting all your contributions to this topic on both internal and foundation).
Yes: I am being confrontational (which I almost never am). EIther help think of something that will make this work or stop repeating that it will never work (because I get it, I really heard you the first X times)
Jan-Bart
*Béria Lima*
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
this would be called: too much drama
There is no life and death situation for "the chapters here". See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization...
Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: "I am going to die" for weeks on end.
In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try
to
think in opportunities rather that not think at all.
Jan-Bart
On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least
choose
the way we are going to die? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk <
vandijk@wmnederland.nl
> wrote:
> 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org: >> It is clear to me that there is a close link between the > fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of > "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we > > Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came > out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF > board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. > > How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a > certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)?
Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range
of
opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement.
Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally
sceptical of
extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history
of MR
since 2010 July, when it began.
So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion.
Best Bishakha
> Then we would have a more > substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a > mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland > dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter > http://wmnederland.nl/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha?
Awaiting your and others' thoughts on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions
Cheers Bishakha
Click in the tab "History". You can see I already asked the question I've been questioning you and Jan there. <sarcasm>If you can't do find a diff alone,</sarcasm> I can help: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_model... _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 15 February 2012 16:33, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha?
Awaiting your and others' thoughts on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions
Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org