Dear all, please welcome with me User:Ral315 as new third list admin of foundation-l. He has volunteered to help, noting that there has been somewhat of a backlog in the moderation queue recently, and Austin and I are glad to accept his offer.
You will most probably know Ral315 already well as current editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, so I'll skip the extended introduction.
Best wishes, Michael for the foundation-l list administrators
2008/8/17 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
Dear all, please welcome with me User:Ral315 as new third list admin of foundation-l. He has volunteered to help, noting that there has been somewhat of a backlog in the moderation queue recently, and Austin and I are glad to accept his offer.
You will most probably know Ral315 already well as current editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, so I'll skip the extended introduction.
Best wishes, Michael for the foundation-l list administrators
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hmm... what made you choose Ral? I don't see him very active on this list at all... last post was June 30th... ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-June/044457.html). I'd have personally preferred a more "veteran" person to take on the role of admin, but maybe that's just me.
Hmm... what made you choose Ral? I don't see him very active on this list at all... last post was June 30th...
I have no idea if Ral is or isn't a good choice, but I think being an infrequent poster is a good thing (as long as he's a frequent reader). You can't fairly moderate a discussion you are taking part in, so if he were a frequent poster he would either have to stop posting or not moderate the threads he's posting to, which would make him a less useful member of the admin team.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Bimmler wrote:
Dear all, please welcome with me User:Ral315 as new third list admin of foundation-l. He has volunteered to help, noting that there has been somewhat of a backlog in the moderation queue recently, and Austin and I are glad to accept his offer.
You will most probably know Ral315 already well as current editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, so I'll skip the extended introduction.
Best wishes, Michael for the foundation-l list administrators
How did you choose him? There was no notice to the list.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
2008/8/17 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Bimmler wrote:
Dear all, please welcome with me User:Ral315 as new third list admin of foundation-l. He has volunteered to help, noting that there has been somewhat of a backlog in the moderation queue recently, and Austin and I are glad to accept his offer.
You will most probably know Ral315 already well as current editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, so I'll skip the extended introduction.
Best wishes, Michael for the foundation-l list administrators
How did you choose him? There was no notice to the list.
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkinZNcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXqBgCffeAOhRkgzzr8VCnTJ0Mz2Iwm HNAAn3O6uz2UwSpXKKb5CJt/2YEaYpfa =Tvo7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/8/17 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
I'm not particularly interested *how* he was chosen... more *why*
I don't distrust Michael, but his idea of a good person may and will differ from other people's.
NVS and I also offered to help months ago, but nothing came of that.
Al Tally wrote:
2008/8/17 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
I'm not particularly interested *how* he was chosen... more *why*
I don't distrust Michael, but his idea of a good person may and will differ from other people's.
NVS and I also offered to help months ago, but nothing came of that.
So in other words, the reason you're critical of the person chosen is because you were passed over?
--Michael Snow
2008/8/17 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
So in other words, the reason you're critical of the person chosen is because you were passed over?
--Michael Snow
That is just an additional reason I'm kind of surprised at this request. Michael never replied to Jon or myself when we offered to help several months ago. I can think of better people for this task. I've had several problems with Ral in the past, and finding out he "volunteered to help" here is the icing on the cake really.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Snow wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
2008/8/17 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
I'm not particularly interested *how* he was chosen... more *why*
I don't distrust Michael, but his idea of a good person may and will differ from other people's.
NVS and I also offered to help months ago, but nothing came of that.
So in other words, the reason you're critical of the person chosen is because you were passed over?
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mr. Snow,
With respect - I think he stated he was critical because of the current choices inactivity. Not the fact that he was passed over. Where in Wikimedia did you come up with that?
He even stated why he was critical here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-August/045330.html
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
Jon wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Snow wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
2008/8/17 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
I'm not particularly interested *how* he was chosen... more *why*
I don't distrust Michael, but his idea of a good person may and will differ from other people's.
NVS and I also offered to help months ago, but nothing came of that.
So in other words, the reason you're critical of the person chosen is because you were passed over?
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mr. Snow,
With respect - I think he stated he was critical because of the current choices inactivity. Not the fact that he was passed over. Where in Wikimedia did you come up with that?
I asked because when something like this is brought up so quickly, the very natural inference is that it is the real motivation for the challenge, not the reason initially stated as a pretense. I observe that neither of the existing list admins, and Austin especially, is noted for being an especially high-volume poster to the list.
And on a mailing list where people regularly complain about the volume of posts detracting from the discussion, it seems rather misplaced to consider that kind of activity the primary criterion for those who might help moderate. There are enough concerns about "editcountitis" in the community, let's not import it from wikis to mailing lists.
--Michael Snow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Snow wrote:
Jon wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Snow wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
2008/8/17 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
I'm not particularly interested *how* he was chosen... more *why*
I don't distrust Michael, but his idea of a good person may and will differ from other people's.
NVS and I also offered to help months ago, but nothing came of that.
So in other words, the reason you're critical of the person chosen is because you were passed over?
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mr. Snow,
With respect - I think he stated he was critical because of the current choices inactivity. Not the fact that he was passed over. Where in Wikimedia did you come up with that?
I asked because when something like this is brought up so quickly, the very natural inference is that it is the real motivation for the challenge, not the reason initially stated as a pretense. I observe that neither of the existing list admins, and Austin especially, is noted for being an especially high-volume poster to the list.
And on a mailing list where people regularly complain about the volume of posts detracting from the discussion, it seems rather misplaced to consider that kind of activity the primary criterion for those who might help moderate. There are enough concerns about "editcountitis" in the community, let's not import it from wikis to mailing lists.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think the criteria I would like to see more is a involvement in volunteer activities on a WM foundation level as opposed to a local project level. Not posting specifically to this list... however that is a plus.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
Michael Snow wrote:
I asked because when something like this is brought up so quickly, the very natural inference is that it is the real motivation for the challenge, not the reason initially stated as a pretense. I observe that neither of the existing list admins, and Austin especially, is noted for being an especially high-volume poster to the list.
And on a mailing list where people regularly complain about the volume of posts detracting from the discussion, it seems rather misplaced to consider that kind of activity the primary criterion for those who might help moderate. There are enough concerns about "editcountitis" in the community, let's not import it from wikis to mailing lists.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael, there's questionable merit to the complaints that the volume of posts detract from the discussion, and inevitably the people making those complaints are always on the top posters for the month list. Please don't try to import a few people's elitist values to the rest of the list. It's lead to censorship and moderation in the past, something that was (rightfully) criticized of the other list admins/moderators. Whether someone posts a lot should absolutely NOT be a disqualification for their consideration as a list admin -- in fact, a strong familiarity and activity with this list and its members should be a requirement. It certainly would fix some of the issues we've had with the moderation on this list in the past.
Let me also just say that while my first response to Majorly and Jon's response was "Holy shit, that's out of line", I think the chair of the board's involvement in making accusations and imputing motives against them, as well as suggesting (in not so many words) that people post less to this list, is even more out of line.
I suggest that this thread dies an immediate, horrible and voluntary death, and we all move on with our lives and let Ral do his job.
-Dan
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
I asked because when something like this is brought up so quickly, the very natural inference is that it is the real motivation for the challenge, not the reason initially stated as a pretense. I observe that neither of the existing list admins, and Austin especially, is noted for being an especially high-volume poster to the list.
And on a mailing list where people regularly complain about the volume of posts detracting from the discussion, it seems rather misplaced to consider that kind of activity the primary criterion for those who might help moderate. There are enough concerns about "editcountitis" in the community, let's not import it from wikis to mailing lists.
Michael, there's questionable merit to the complaints that the volume of posts detract from the discussion, and inevitably the people making those complaints are always on the top posters for the month list.
Sorry, but this is simply not true, regardless of the merit of the complaints (enough different people complain that I think we should at least listen, although I'm not sure how much weight to give such complaints). From a thread a few months ago where the issue was raised: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039442.html (Mathias Damour) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039506.html (Lars Aronsson) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039509.html (Dmcdevit) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039531.html (Anders Wegge Jakobsen, agreeing with Lars)
These are all from people who post no more than occasionally (Lars is the most active, but I doubt he's ever been near the top of the list for a month). Nevertheless, they are regular readers and all people whose opinions I would value, even if I might not always agree with them.
Whether someone posts a lot should absolutely NOT be a disqualification for their consideration as a list admin
Who said it should be a disqualification? I merely suggested that given the complaints, it might not be the best qualification.
Let me also just say that while my first response to Majorly and Jon's response was "Holy shit, that's out of line", I think the chair of the board's involvement in making accusations and imputing motives against them, as well as suggesting (in not so many words) that people post less to this list, is even more out of line.
I'm not personally suggesting people post less to this list, simply reminding us about the longstanding concerns. Sorry for not making that more clear, and I didn't single anyone out as posting excessively. I would like to think that it's okay to take the views of others into consideration.
I don't understand how, though, if something is seriously out of line, being chair of the board should disqualify me from saying that it is out of line. My comments on this subject have been purely my own in any case, not representing the board or the foundation, should anyone be wondering.
--Michael Snow
As another formerly high volume poster to this list who also volunteered as moderator, I think Ral will do fine and see no problem with the selection.
As an aside, I've stopped posting the top posters list (which has been mentioned several times) due to the various objections.
Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
effe iets anders wrote:
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
With all respect, I think I might object to this choice for the foundation list. But I want to here Michael first.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
effe iets anders wrote:
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
I would also be very interested to know why there was no response to my offer to volunteer. There was one other public offer, and he is very active on the list as well. I am not understanding. - -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
List administration is a list administrators job. I am totaly fine with it if the list administrators handle the administration, including new admin-appointments. This kind of stuff is not something to decide on the list itself. I am fine with elaborations etc, I don't care. But on the other side, I just go with Michael here, I trust his judgement on what is needed and who is better. (this unless there is a huge major problem with a new or old admin on a structural basis of course)
kr, lodewijk
2008/8/17 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
effe iets anders wrote:
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot. Welcome, Ral315!
I would also be very interested to know why there was no response to my offer to volunteer. There was one other public offer, and he is very active on the list as well. I am not understanding.
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkinZ7YACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVAAwCfSFW99CqURrF+o9XhfJoU3c1C j74An3suJwQl4XVR/F1Ewxgjpmq78bue =DU9Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:41 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
folks, please. If Michael thinks he's a good guy, I'm fine with it. I don't think that mawning on how he made the choice etc will help a lot.
Hear hear. Welcome, Ral315, and thanks for offering help.
Welcome, Ral315!
Lodewijk
2008/8/17 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Bimmler wrote:
Dear all, please welcome with me User:Ral315 as new third list admin of foundation-l. He has volunteered to help, noting that there has been somewhat of a backlog in the moderation queue recently, and Austin and I are glad to accept his offer.
You will most probably know Ral315 already well as current editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, so I'll skip the extended introduction.
Best wishes, Michael for the foundation-l list administrators
How did you choose him? There was no notice to the list.
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkinZNcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXqBgCffeAOhRkgzzr8VCnTJ0Mz2Iwm HNAAn3O6uz2UwSpXKKb5CJt/2YEaYpfa =Tvo7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
I must say, I'm astonished what kind of seemingly uncontroversial decisions can spark so much drama again.
In fact, I echo Dan's suggestions that this thread should die again very quickly (for reasoning see below), but I figured that it would again be seen very negatively if I didn't respond here, so let me make a short statement:
1) It is my opinion that Wikipedia would not be as successful as it is, if we had not Assumed Good Faith of each other at times. Can we please also apply this to this list (administration)?
2) Some people here opposed Ral's appointment on procedural grounds ("How did you choose him? Why was this not a democratic process with a survey?"). Now, opposing a candidate (under such circumstances as we have them here) on merely procedural reasons seems rather meritless to me. May I suggest that you first wait to see how Ral does his job? In fact, in the best case you will hardly notice him doing anything, which is the way it should be. If you have good reason to complain later, you can still start a 'vote of no-confidence' here...
3) Others questioned his experience or activity: By all means, I can't take this serious. Ral has been here longer than many of you (or at least those who are the loudest critics), his en.wp involvement started in September 2004. And no, to anticipate a counter-argument, this is not irrelevant in this context -- he has a good grasp of Wikimedia affairs (obviously, as Signpost editor), he is experienced in dealing with..."difficult users" and thus he is in my eyes perfectly qualified for the job. That he is a less frequent poster than others on the other hand is really irrelevant here - he is not here to actively moderate any *discussion* (panel-style), he is here to moderate a *discussion list*. That's a fine but important difference. In fact, it gives him more time to do moderation work while you guys fire away your 10 posts an hour ;-)
4) One last point about procedure: We received many applications, both off- and onlist. We considered all of them and have now chosen Ral315, that's the way application systems work. I'm not a friend of model letters ("Unfortunately your application was not successful, I hope you will apply again for other functions blablabla") and thus the approach was rather "Only successful applicants will be contacted". Sorry, if this wasn't made clear. And no, it's not practical to make an appointment hearing or even a vote for the job of list administrator. If you don't trust us as a team, organise a sound vote of no-confidence and if the board (or the technical staff or whomever) are satisfied that this vote reflects broad consensus, I'm sure they will replace us with other list administrators.
Please, let Ral315 do his job now and if you want to explore this further, do it off-list with us.
Regards, Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Bimmler wrote:
I must say, I'm astonished what kind of seemingly uncontroversial decisions can spark so much drama again.
In fact, I echo Dan's suggestions that this thread should die again very quickly (for reasoning see below), but I figured that it would again be seen very negatively if I didn't respond here, so let me make a short statement:
- It is my opinion that Wikipedia would not be as successful as it
is, if we had not Assumed Good Faith of each other at times. Can we please also apply this to this list (administration)?
- Some people here opposed Ral's appointment on procedural grounds
("How did you choose him? Why was this not a democratic process with a survey?"). Now, opposing a candidate (under such circumstances as we have them here) on merely procedural reasons seems rather meritless to me. May I suggest that you first wait to see how Ral does his job? In fact, in the best case you will hardly notice him doing anything, which is the way it should be. If you have good reason to complain later, you can still start a 'vote of no-confidence' here...
- Others questioned his experience or activity: By all means, I can't
take this serious. Ral has been here longer than many of you (or at least those who are the loudest critics), his en.wp involvement started in September 2004. And no, to anticipate a counter-argument, this is not irrelevant in this context -- he has a good grasp of Wikimedia affairs (obviously, as Signpost editor), he is experienced in dealing with..."difficult users" and thus he is in my eyes perfectly qualified for the job. That he is a less frequent poster than others on the other hand is really irrelevant here - he is not here to actively moderate any *discussion* (panel-style), he is here to moderate a *discussion list*. That's a fine but important difference. In fact, it gives him more time to do moderation work while you guys fire away your 10 posts an hour ;-)
- One last point about procedure: We received many applications, both
off- and onlist. We considered all of them and have now chosen Ral315, that's the way application systems work. I'm not a friend of model letters ("Unfortunately your application was not successful, I hope you will apply again for other functions blablabla") and thus the approach was rather "Only successful applicants will be contacted". Sorry, if this wasn't made clear. And no, it's not practical to make an appointment hearing or even a vote for the job of list administrator. If you don't trust us as a team, organise a sound vote of no-confidence and if the board (or the technical staff or whomever) are satisfied that this vote reflects broad consensus, I'm sure they will replace us with other list administrators.
Please, let Ral315 do his job now and if you want to explore this further, do it off-list with us.
Regards, Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In deference to Dan I choose to welcome Ral. I'll start by saying I do trust the list owners.
In the future, I highly encourage the list owners to strive for transparency. That is to say, that right before an appointment, it should be stated "We are considering appointing so and so, please send comments privately to listowners@whatever.org".
Also, I highly encourage the list owners as a courtesy to let those who applied know that they were considered, but not chosen.
I'm not asking for a boilerplate email, I'm asking for a personal one with a couple of sentences. This is professional courtesy in any corporate or volunteer organization. It is impolite not to do so.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
In the future, I highly encourage the list owners to strive for transparency. That is to say, that right before an appointment, it should be stated "We are considering appointing so and so, please send comments privately to listowners@whatever.org".
Well, yes, I'll try to do this next time.
Also, I highly encourage the list owners as a courtesy to let those who applied know that they were considered, but not chosen.
I'm not asking for a boilerplate email, I'm asking for a personal one with a couple of sentences. This is professional courtesy in any corporate or volunteer organization. It is impolite not to do so.
With this, though, I have a bit more problems. It's not that I strive to be impolite, but rather, I'm doubting about its practicalities:
1) Even with the comparatively small amount of applications that I myself have already written to corporations, I can tell you that it is by no means standard practice to reply to every application - many companies only reply to those whom they want to do an interview with etc. Now, of course, this alone wouldn't prevent us from "doing better".
2) However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time. In fact, I know until now absolutely *no* company that will write you a personal letter explaining why you, in particular, were not chosen. I don't know whether in the US, corporations have that large HR departments that they can make this effort, but it doesn't strike me as SOP.
This said, if you find a medium way between boilerplates and tailor-made emails for every individual candidate, I'm glad to consider it.
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
In the future, I highly encourage the list owners to strive for transparency. That is to say, that right before an appointment, it should be stated "We are considering appointing so and so, please send comments privately to listowners@whatever.org".
Well, yes, I'll try to do this next time.
Also, I highly encourage the list owners as a courtesy to let those who applied know that they were considered, but not chosen.
I'm not asking for a boilerplate email, I'm asking for a personal one with a couple of sentences. This is professional courtesy in any corporate or volunteer organization. It is impolite not to do so.
With this, though, I have a bit more problems. It's not that I strive to be impolite, but rather, I'm doubting about its practicalities:
- Even with the comparatively small amount of applications that I
myself have already written to corporations, I can tell you that it is by no means standard practice to reply to every application - many companies only reply to those whom they want to do an interview with etc. Now, of course, this alone wouldn't prevent us from "doing better".
- However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you
didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time. In fact, I know until now absolutely *no* company that will write you a personal letter explaining why you, in particular, were not chosen. I don't know whether in the US, corporations have that large HR departments that they can make this effort, but it doesn't strike me as SOP.
This said, if you find a medium way between boilerplates and tailor-made emails for every individual candidate, I'm glad to consider it.
Michael
Actually, your correct, most HR send boilerplates only. I Think in this way, a boilerplate would be better than nothing. I only knew of two other volunteers, but I'm not you, you may have received 10 or more. I don't know of any good solution. I'm only suggesting not leaving volunteers hanging. I hope you understand the thought of "Hmm, they choose someone, did they forget about my offer?????". Best to eliminate that.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Actually, your correct, most HR send boilerplates only. I Think in this way, a boilerplate would be better than nothing. I only knew of two other volunteers, but I'm not you, you may have received 10 or more.
Yes, in fact we have.
I don't know of any good solution. I'm only suggesting not leaving volunteers hanging. I hope you understand the thought of "Hmm, they choose someone, did they forget about my offer?????". Best to eliminate that.
This is true and I confess that I haven't thought about this enough - I'll make a mental note for the future! Apologies to everyone who felt ignored, this was certainly not the intention.
MIchael
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.comwrote:
- However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you
didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time.
An explanation of why only one person could be accepted would be helpful, since you seem to be implying that this is the case.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.comwrote:
- However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you
didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time.
An explanation of why only one person could be accepted would be helpful, since you seem to be implying that this is the case.
Along these lines, does the mail software support giving someone permission to approve messages only (not to change moderation status)? Seems that pretty much anyone who can be trusted to send unmoderated posts can be trusted to do this.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 18:56, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Along these lines, does the mail software support giving someone permission to approve messages only (not to change moderation status)? Seems that pretty much anyone who can be trusted to send unmoderated posts can be trusted to do this.
I'd argue that posting from your own name is very different to judging the content of a message from someone already flagged (by being moderated) as potentially troublesome.
Sean
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 18:56, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Along these lines, does the mail software support giving someone
permission
to approve messages only (not to change moderation status)? Seems that pretty much anyone who can be trusted to send unmoderated posts can be trusted to do this.
I'd argue that posting from your own name is very different to judging the content of a message from someone already flagged (by being moderated) as potentially troublesome.
Of course it's very different. But as a matter of trusting someone, I stand by my statement. Letting through posts by moderated users is "no big deal". And remember, it's not just posts by people marked as potentially troublesome - it's posts by people not marked as probably not troublesome.
But whether or not I'm right about that particular statement isn't even that important. I think it's almost beyond debate that there are at least *some* people who can be trusted to do this (at least on a trial basis), who are willing to do this, and who don't currently have access to do this.
But does the mail software support this?
Anthony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.comwrote:
- However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you
didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time.
An explanation of why only one person could be accepted would be helpful, since you seem to be implying that this is the case. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It could be just limiting the ability to a few is security minded. I'm not sure. My volunteer offer stands should the list owner ever require another.
I want to take a moment to Welcome Ral315, and Ral, thank you for volunteering.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you
didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time. In fact, I know until now absolutely *no* company that will write you a personal letter explaining why you, in particular, were not chosen. I don't know whether in the US, corporations have that large HR departments that they can make this effort, but it doesn't strike me as SOP.
There are a lot of useful thing to be done for Wikimedia projects, community, WMF, free knowledge... If there is a will to do so, it should be used. If there is just one place for list admin, it is reasonable to keep a list of other possible tasks and to offer one of the tasks from the list to candidates which didn't pass.
Maybe it is time to think about canalizing enthusiasm of Wikimedians toward higher involvement.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it is time to think about canalizing enthusiasm of Wikimedians toward higher involvement.
Wasn't someone hired to do just that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it is time to think about canalizing enthusiasm of Wikimedians toward higher involvement.
Wasn't someone hired to do just that? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And he does a good job at it. I think this above comment by Milos was in reference to the specific instance of the volunteer list mod position.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it is time to think about canalizing enthusiasm of Wikimedians toward higher involvement.
AFAIK, Cary is not a list owner who asked for volunteers. As well as he is not able to monitor all volunteer activities.
It is obvious that coordinating hundreds or thousands volunteers is not a job for one person. Maybe it is good to think about Volunteer Committee, led by Cary. (Hm. Do we have something like that?)
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council can liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe it is time to think about canalizing enthusiasm of Wikimedians toward higher involvement.
AFAIK, Cary is not a list owner who asked for volunteers. As well as he is not able to monitor all volunteer activities.
It is obvious that coordinating hundreds or thousands volunteers is not a job for one person. Maybe it is good to think about Volunteer Committee, led by Cary. (Hm. Do we have something like that?)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*wonders why this mailing list always edits Cary's job...* :p
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council can liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK, Cary is not a list owner who asked for volunteers. As well as he is not able to monitor all volunteer activities.
It is obvious that coordinating hundreds or thousands volunteers is not a job for one person. Maybe it is good to think about Volunteer Committee, led by Cary. (Hm. Do we have something like that?)
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
*wonders why this mailing list always edits Cary's job...* :p
Sue (or the Board) did the right thing when they hired a person for coordinating volunteers. Unlike for the majority of particular tasks, I didn't saw any grass-root intention toward making such kind of body. We like to talk about politics, policies, principles etc., but not a lot about ordinary things, like -- how to function as a project, community etc.; as well as it is almost impossible to find community members who are ready to work on ordinary issues which are not visible ("ah, it is so boring..."). There are no a lot of people who like to drive trains, buses, who like to move garbage from streets, to care about playgrounds in the neighborhood... And there are a lot of analogies between real life communal tasks and virtual space ones.
But, if there is someone who is already doing that, it is easy to say "drive me to Venice" or "it would be really good if you would take garbage from my house, so I wouldn't need to go out of my house".
And to be more serious: I realized now (after the issue with candidates was raised) that the main reason why a lot of people are willing to change description of Cary's job is -- that position is very needed for the community and, as I said few times already, it is not a size of job which one person may do. So, we need to think how to solve that. And, "solving that" is much more community's job than Cary's.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council can liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
There are two different starting points between the Council and the Committee intentions: Council was intended to represent (somehow) community's (or communities') will, while committee is a working body with a particular goal. With or without council, for me it is obvious that we should have a body which manages volunteers' enthusiasm toward higher involvement. (And, according to the size of the volunteer community, this is not a job for one person.)
Hoi, When you start from either starting point, there is a need for credibility. When activities are started with the clear intention to grow the activities into a Community Council, you gain respect and credibility. Good intentions are there aplenty. Many of the people who have shown interest to be actively involved, are people that I respect for who they are and what they have done. What I am looking for is that these few good men together are more then their individual great reputations. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council can liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
There are two different starting points between the Council and the Committee intentions: Council was intended to represent (somehow) community's (or communities') will, while committee is a working body with a particular goal. With or without council, for me it is obvious that we should have a body which manages volunteers' enthusiasm toward higher involvement. (And, according to the size of the volunteer community, this is not a job for one person.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council can liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
There are two different starting points between the Council and the Committee intentions: Council was intended to represent (somehow) community's (or communities') will, while committee is a working body with a particular goal. With or without council, for me it is obvious that we should have a body which manages volunteers' enthusiasm toward higher involvement. (And, according to the size of the volunteer community, this is not a job for one person.)
It is not a job for a committee either.
I think a better way of looking at the matter would be to approach it from the direction of how it looks to Cary;
Is there stuff he would be able to accomplish in his area of responsibility if only there were more hours in a day?
Are there things that he personally could not be able to accomplish even if there were 72 hours in a day, but some other person with complementary skills _might_ be able to accomplish?
Or is the situation as Cary sees it such that no matter how much time or men you threw at it, pretty much the same things would get accomplished, but merely with a greater expenditure of people and time?
In short, better than a committee or "squad" or whatever, would be to split the task into two or more complementary areas of responsibility, *if* that is what Cary thinks would be useful.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council can liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
There are two different starting points between the Council and the Committee intentions: Council was intended to represent (somehow) community's (or communities') will, while committee is a working body with a particular goal. With or without council, for me it is obvious that we should have a body which manages volunteers' enthusiasm toward higher involvement. (And, according to the size of the volunteer community, this is not a job for one person.)
It is not a job for a committee either.
I think a better way of looking at the matter would be to approach it from the direction of how it looks to Cary;
Is there stuff he would be able to accomplish in his area of responsibility if only there were more hours in a day?
Are there things that he personally could not be able to accomplish even if there were 72 hours in a day, but some other person with complementary skills _might_ be able to accomplish?
Or is the situation as Cary sees it such that no matter how much time or men you threw at it, pretty much the same things would get accomplished, but merely with a greater expenditure of people and time?
In short, better than a committee or "squad" or whatever, would be to split the task into two or more complementary areas of responsibility, *if* that is what Cary thinks would be useful.
My opinion?
I think Ral315 is an exceptional choice for list admin! That's what this thread is about, isn't it?
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
Hoi, When the WMF office needs to organise volunteers, they do so to fulfil the needs that the WMF as an organisation has. This is not necessarily the same thing as how the projects and their communities can make the work of our volunteers more effective. Obviously there may be a lot of overlap between what a council of volunteers organises and what Cary organises consequently a high level of collaboration with the WMF is a sensible thing to do.
A council is to serve the needs of our communities, to coordinate our efforts, to ensure that the lessons learned are incorporated in new efforts. We should do this for our own reasons. Cary is capable enough to ensure that the things HE needs to coordinate will get the attention he is able to give and I am sure that a council will be happy to help as much as is feasible. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council
can
liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ... Thanks, GerardM
NB no irony intended !!
There are two different starting points between the Council and the Committee intentions: Council was intended to represent (somehow) community's (or communities') will, while committee is a working body with a particular goal. With or without council, for me it is obvious that we should have a body which manages volunteers' enthusiasm toward higher involvement. (And, according to the size of the volunteer community, this is not a job for one person.)
It is not a job for a committee either.
I think a better way of looking at the matter would be to approach it from the direction of how it looks to Cary;
Is there stuff he would be able to accomplish in his area of responsibility if only there were more hours in a day?
Are there things that he personally could not be able to accomplish even if there were 72 hours in a day, but some other person with complementary skills _might_ be able to accomplish?
Or is the situation as Cary sees it such that no matter how much time or men you threw at it, pretty much the same things would get accomplished, but merely with a greater expenditure of people and time?
In short, better than a committee or "squad" or whatever, would be to split the task into two or more complementary areas of responsibility, *if* that is what Cary thinks would be useful.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 20:45 +0300, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
In short, better than a committee or "squad" or whatever, would be to split the task into two or more complementary areas of responsibility, *if* that is what Cary thinks would be useful.
I'll put some words into Cary mouth for him. (Apology in advance Cary :)
His job is whatever as determined by the Board and his line manager (the ED). And if he feels there's too much work for one person to do, he'll let the ED / Board know.
;-)
KTC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- However, what kind of mail would you have liked? You said that you
didn't want a boilerplate email, okay. But how do you write "personal emails" to the ca. 10 applicants who we did not choose? Either you keep it very short and simple ("Hi, this is to inform you that you were considered but that we found Ral315 to be the most qualified candidate after all"), which would be a form of a boilerplate again. Otherwise, you'll have to outline for every candidate the exact reasons why the successful candidate was "better" (read: more qualified) than him and it's a) difficult to formulate this without being impolite and b) it takes a lot of time. In fact, I know until now absolutely *no* company that will write you a personal letter explaining why you, in particular, were not chosen. I don't know whether in the US, corporations have that large HR departments that they can make this effort, but it doesn't strike me as SOP.
There are a lot of useful thing to be done for Wikimedia projects, community, WMF, free knowledge... If there is a will to do so, it should be used. If there is just one place for list admin, it is reasonable to keep a list of other possible tasks and to offer one of the tasks from the list to candidates which didn't pass.
Maybe it is time to think about canalizing enthusiasm of Wikimedians toward higher involvement.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes! Absolutely and I agree! It was in this manner that I started working with the others on the Wikimedia Blog. It all started with "Well do you know of any volunteering I can do?" I don't remember who (Raul or Cary?), but someone pointed me to ComProj, and I became active.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, please welcome with me User:Ral315 as new third list admin of foundation-l. He has volunteered to help, noting that there has been somewhat of a backlog in the moderation queue recently, and Austin and I are glad to accept his offer.
You will most probably know Ral315 already well as current editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, so I'll skip the extended introduction.
Best wishes, Michael for the foundation-l list administratorshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I should say for the record that I have no intent to add or remove anyone from moderation for quite a while; my offer to volunteer was strictly to approve e-mails sitting in the moderation queue. The only reason I offered was that I noticed that a few e-mails were approved recently that had been sent more than a week before, and I figured that was a sign that Michael and Austin might have needed some help. I hope and expect that my work on the list is as mundane, non-controversial and invisible as possible.
As far as my list inactivity goes, I read the list on a daily basis, but lately I've noticed that others tend to make my points for me, and are much more articulate in expressing their views. I think a lot of the "top posters" add a significant amount to discussion and their posts are worthwhile; for myself, I find that the more I post, the less I tend to say.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Ral315 wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
As far as my list inactivity goes, I read the list on a daily basis, but lately I've noticed that others tend to make my points for me, and are much more articulate in expressing their views. I think a lot of the "top posters" add a significant amount to discussion and their posts are worthwhile; for myself, I find that the more I post, the less I tend to say.
I wish more people had this insight. Personally, I think Ral315 will do an excellent job moderating the list.
Honestly, it's an administrative job folks, it's not the keys to the kingdom.
-Chad
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chad wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Ral315 wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
As far as my list inactivity goes, I read the list on a daily basis, but lately I've noticed that others tend to make my points for me, and are much more articulate in expressing their views. I think a lot of the "top posters" add a significant amount to discussion and their posts are worthwhile; for myself, I find that the more I post, the less I tend to say.
I wish more people had this insight. Personally, I think Ral315 will do an excellent job moderating the list.
Honestly, it's an administrative job folks, it's not the keys to the kingdom.
-Chad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am more than sure, most assuredly sure that nobody here is in it (the volunteer listmod) for power or status. I dislike that argument very much. :) Some people just want to *do something*. ~~~~
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
I agree with Chad. If I had any problems with Ral (I didn't, but hypothetically if I did) this post by him would have eliminated them.
-Dan
Chad wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Ral315 wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
As far as my list inactivity goes, I read the list on a daily basis, but lately I've noticed that others tend to make my points for me, and are much more articulate in expressing their views. I think a lot of the "top posters" add a significant amount to discussion and their posts are worthwhile; for myself, I find that the more I post, the less I tend to say.
I wish more people had this insight. Personally, I think Ral315 will do an excellent job moderating the list.
Honestly, it's an administrative job folks, it's not the keys to the kingdom.
-Chad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org