Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now available:
Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Reading (formerly mobile web and apps): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering, Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering, Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design Research, and Security teams): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and Team Practices: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
As usual, much of this information will also be available in consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4, which is planned to be published on July 30.
Hello all - just a small correction. Advancement is actually Fundraising + Partnerships, which presented alongside Fundraising Tech.
Thanks, Anne
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now available:
Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering, Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering, Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design Research, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
As usual, much of this information will also be available in consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4, which is planned to be published on July 30.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I appreciate the combined QRs. Questions and comments:
1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify.
2. CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary. This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia, both physical and virtual.
3. What are the goals for the CA meeting with Stewards?
4. For F&A, I propose that next year there is an additional measure of success for the Annual Plan that goes something like this: "Complete annual plan draft with all supporting documents such as budget tables and job descriptions will be published for community review by April 15. Community review and discussion period will happen through May 15, with staff responding to each question within one week of the question being asked. Annual Plan revisions, taking community feedback into account, are completed by June 1 for Board to review during the full month of June. At least one Board meeting during which the Annual Plan is reviewed will be open to the community through remote video participation."
5. A couple of teams in a few departments seem to have spent significant time on simply developing their goals for the next year. The amount of time being used on planning seems excessive in some cases. I would suggest developing standardized processes for goal development, perhaps with the assistance of Team Practices, Learning & Evaluation, and/or Human Resources.
6. A Communications Department goal was to "Advance Wikimedia movement goals through Executive Director visits and speeches". I feel the need to ask if it's necessary for the WMF ED to travel so much when neither senior position in WMF technology and engineering is filled, and the ED isn't keeping up with community discussions on her talk page or the Annual Plan talk page. This suggests an overstretched ED. I would suggest more time on technology/engineering management and community discussion, and de-prioritization of site visits until engineering management is stabilized. In the future, I would also encourage building more time into ED schedule for reactive measures, such as for more publicly visible leadership and communications surrounding the Annual Plan process that went off-track in 2015.
7. I am glad that the "Future of knowledge" film was cut from the budget. There are many better uses for those funds, such as videos that market Wikipedia editing to potential editors, or that explain to potential editors how to add content to Wikipedia.
8. "Messaging platform": in one place the Comms QR says that this was cancelled, and in another place the QR says that this was postponed. Which is it, and what is the goal for this platform?
9. Comms appendix E: I would cut "Many happy returns" and "Rallying cry". The latter is particularly problematic given that we're also fighting for user privacy. I would amplify "Everyone is a Wikipedian" and "Capture the entire world's experience of Wikipedia", because I think that those will resonate. We may also want to add another concept about the value of Wikipedia for readers; ask "What would the world be like without Wikipedia?"
10. I was impressed with the detailed development of the personas for user research. Those can be useful for thinking about product development and testing.
11. I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially welcome.
Regards,
Pine
Pine
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Anne Gomez agomez@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all - just a small correction. Advancement is actually Fundraising + Partnerships, which presented alongside Fundraising Tech.
Thanks, Anne
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now available:
Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering, Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering, Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design Research, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
As usual, much of this information will also be available in consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4, which is planned to be published on July 30.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Anne Gomez* // Product Manager, Fundraising https://wikimediafoundation.org/
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate http://donate.wikimedia.org. * _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer).
Kirill
Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions, and the policy for office actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me that the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after community consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board should consider creating one.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
How can you experiment and explore while going through processes like that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire (including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.
Sent from my iPhone
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 x6716
On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions, and the policy for office actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me that the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after community consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board should consider creating one.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As well-intentioned as that policy was, I can't find that there was ever an authority (the Board or the community) who ratified the policy. It's well intentioned and it seems to me that it might very well pass an RfC. The Board or the community might agree to expand it to cover all grants name spaces, in one form or another. I support the concept of having a friendly space policy, and it should be implemented the right way. This next quarter seems like a good time for that to happen.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
How can you experiment and explore while going through processes like that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire (including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.
Sent from my iPhone
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 x6716
On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions, and the policy for
office
actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me
that
the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after
community
consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board should consider creating one.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
commenter or
reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users". I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC.
Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users". I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter
or
reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Pine, As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added value is of your insistence.
When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC.
Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit
one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative
feedback
that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem
to
have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility,
or
addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth
upturning
a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line
against
offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users". I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the
expectations
if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be
good
if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through
an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform
further
discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta,
and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that
the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
commenter
or
reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Gerard,
The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally willing to be the initiator of one. Likewise, board resolutions happen freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a friendly space policy.
If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some kind of process for saying that a document that governs community behavior is actually a policy that has gone through a quality control and transparent approval process, then we could go down the path of letting WMF staff write policies for the community without explicit Board or community involvement and consent; in this case the policy in question will govern community content and behavior, including meta content and community speech which are especially sensitive subjects for WMF to be regulating. I don't think that's a good idea in the semi-democratic movement of Wikimedia. Staff can make proposals, facilitate discussion, and ask questions. The policymakers should be the Board and/or the community.
There is a role for the WMF staff to play here. In particular it would be great for WMF Legal and Community Advocacy to facilitate discussion and make suggestions about a friendly space policy with the goal of having a final product that receives approval from the community or the Board and is enforceable by community administrators as a genuine policy of the community.
Pine On Jul 20, 2015 9:53 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Pine, As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added value is of your insistence.
When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content
moderation,
and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to
see
more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF
to
have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on
that
committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space
policy
is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC.
Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit
one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple
of
years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short
term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative
feedback
that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem
to
have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement,
it
seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like
you're
doing something about a problem, without actually taking
responsibility,
or
addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth
upturning
a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line
against
offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will
share
their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users". I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the
expectations
if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be
good
if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an
event
where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic
individuals
might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants
spaces
on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the
rollout
plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through
an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision
is
ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform
further
discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta,
and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that
the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages
on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
commenter
or
reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Craig,
You are right that the harassment issue needs more than gestures or unenforceable guidelines, and Community Engagement is working with community members on new ideas and approaches. The Friendly Spaces expectations are a beginning, not an end point; they are a first step to get the community talking about ways to change the status quo. They offer some structure to build around in developing new social norms/expectations. But I agree that this must be part of a larger effort and conversation to have any real positive effect.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users". I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter
or
reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 19 July 2015 at 15:42, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their
consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially welcome.
I can only speak for my own experience, but you may be pleased to hear that the new quarterly review process has actually made things significantly* less* stressful for me!
Previously expectations around what should be included were unclear, so preparing for the review was a week-long affair of compiling all of the events of the quarter and all plans for next quarter into a single slide deck, normally of over 50 slides.
In contrast, the new process is simple and straightforward. The standardisation of the template lets everyone know what to expect, and makes the slide decks significantly more useful to those that didn't participate directly in the review.
Terry and his team deserve immense praise for how they've evolved this process to be lightweight and useful. Thank you!
Dan
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned
users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary. This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia, both physical and virtual.
Quite right - you haven't received it... because it was just finished before Wikimania. Give us a bit of time to breathe, please. :-) It will be circulated as necessary - meaning, we will likely not be providing the list of names, except to event organizers. I believe the current intent is to share the protocol with those who are interested, but I'm honestly not sure of this - while it was developed on my team, I honestly didn't have day to day involvement with it, so I need to refresh my memory. :-)
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki https://twitter.com/Philippewiki
Hi Pine,
Thanks for your questions regarding the Communications QR slides. Answers in-line below.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate the combined QRs. Questions and comments:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify.
- CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned
users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary. This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia, both physical and virtual.
What are the goals for the CA meeting with Stewards?
For F&A, I propose that next year there is an additional measure of
success for the Annual Plan that goes something like this: "Complete annual plan draft with all supporting documents such as budget tables and job descriptions will be published for community review by April 15. Community review and discussion period will happen through May 15, with staff responding to each question within one week of the question being asked. Annual Plan revisions, taking community feedback into account, are completed by June 1 for Board to review during the full month of June. At least one Board meeting during which the Annual Plan is reviewed will be open to the community through remote video participation."
- A couple of teams in a few departments seem to have spent significant
time on simply developing their goals for the next year. The amount of time being used on planning seems excessive in some cases. I would suggest developing standardized processes for goal development, perhaps with the assistance of Team Practices, Learning & Evaluation, and/or Human Resources.
- A Communications Department goal was to "Advance Wikimedia movement
goals through Executive Director visits and speeches". I feel the need to ask if it's necessary for the WMF ED to travel so much when neither senior position in WMF technology and engineering is filled, and the ED isn't keeping up with community discussions on her talk page or the Annual Plan talk page. This suggests an overstretched ED. I would suggest more time on technology/engineering management and community discussion, and de-prioritization of site visits until engineering management is stabilized. In the future, I would also encourage building more time into ED schedule for reactive measures, such as for more publicly visible leadership and communications surrounding the Annual Plan process that went off-track in 2015.
- I am glad that the "Future of knowledge" film was cut from the budget.
There are many better uses for those funds, such as videos that market Wikipedia editing to potential editors, or that explain to potential editors how to add content to Wikipedia.
We agree that this wasn't the right year to move forward with this concept, which is why we cancelled it following further exploration. Along the lines of what you suggest, we have plans to develop videos this year that support engagement and outreach. The specifics of these videos are under development now, but one of the first will address new editing features in Visual Editor.
- "Messaging platform": in one place the Comms QR says that this was
cancelled, and in another place the QR says that this was postponed. Which is it, and what is the goal for this platform?
This was postponed. A message platform is a jargon term for a outline of your objectives, rendered in clear, compelling language for a particular audience(s). A very simple example would be answering the questions: What do we do? Why do we do it? How do we do it? Why does it matter? While our shared movement vision is clear, different audiences may respond to different explanations -- for example, a university considering an education partnership will be interested in different things than a conference audience of open source developers. The goal of a message platform is to help a listener or reader easily grasp key points by by improving clarity and consistency in written or spoken communications. As we embark on the emergent strategy, a messaging platform can support clarity regarding proposed actions and desired outcomes.
- Comms appendix E: I would cut "Many happy returns" and "Rallying cry".
The latter is particularly problematic given that we're also fighting for user privacy. I would amplify "Everyone is a Wikipedian" and "Capture the entire world's experience of Wikipedia", because I think that those will resonate. We may also want to add another concept about the value of Wikipedia for readers; ask "What would the world be like without Wikipedia?"
I should clarify that these concepts were developed by Wikimedia stakeholders in a workshop about messaging about Wikipedia for a broader audience, and are meant to be representative of ongoing work, not final concepts. We ran two versions of the same workshop last week at Wikimania, and are exploring ways to hold similar exercises online so that more community members can participate. We agree in the importance of testing ideas to see what resonates.
- I was impressed with the detailed development of the personas for user
research. Those can be useful for thinking about product development and testing.
- I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their
consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially welcome.
Regards,
Pine
Pine
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Anne Gomez agomez@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all - just a small correction. Advancement is actually Fundraising
Partnerships, which presented alongside Fundraising Tech.
Thanks, Anne
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now available:
Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering, Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering, Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design Research, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterl...
As usual, much of this information will also be available in consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4, which is planned to be published on July 30.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Anne Gomez* // Product Manager, Fundraising https://wikimediafoundation.org/
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate http://donate.wikimedia.org. * _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Katherine!
Pine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org